From Section 7 of the draft:
"Responders which choose not to implement the protocol extensions
defined in this document MUST respond with a return code (RCODE) of
FORMERR to messages containing an OPT RR in the additional section
and MUST NOT include an OPT record in the response."
That looks like a change [1] to STD 13. Responders which respond
with a return code of 4 would not be compliant.
On publication of draft-ietf-dnsext-rfc2671bis-edns0-09, will it be
part of STD 13?
From RFC 3225:
"In the event a server returns a NOTIMP, FORMERR or SERVFAIL response
to a query that has the DO bit set, the resolver SHOULD NOT expect
DNSSEC security RRs and SHOULD retry the query without EDNS0 in
accordance with section 5.3 of [RFC2671]."
There's a normative reference [2] to that RFC in this draft.
In Section 1:
"This document deprecates Extended Labels, and therefore Binary Labels,
obsoleting [RFC2673]."
draft-ietf-dnsext-rfc6195bis-04 mentions that:
"The Binary label type is Historic [RFC2671bis]."
The IETF might wish to consider whether it is necessary to align the
text in the two drafts.
Regards,
-sm
1. Whether it is a change or not depends upon how one reads RFC
6410. The write-up mentions that there are no unused features in the
specification that greatly increase implementation complexity. It is
unclear whether this document is a minor revision of RFC 2671.
2. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/weirds/current/msg01668.html