[dns-operations] Hall of DNS Shame (?)

[Mark Andrews]

In message <C24E5BC8-5920-4529-B05C-7E45F5AB0207 at frobbit.se>, "Patrik =?utf-8?b
?RsOkbHRzdHLDtm0=?=" writes:
>
> I think the DNS community have sort of tried to do similar things many
> times. To be able to not get stuck (again) let me suggest a separation
> between the "definition of what issues there might be" from "judging
> whether the issue is bad" (or how bad it is). I really want, and think,
> we can agree on list of issues. Whether it is really bad or not is in
> many cases eyes of the viewer.
>
>    paf

Can we start with "stops resolution succeeding today unless the resolver
performs a workaround" as a must be fixed immediately fault?  Resolver
vendors shouldn't have to be adding work arounds to their code.

No answer of DO=1 query.
No answer of AD=1 query.
No answer of RD=1 query.
Returns FORMERR to a EDNS option with EDNS(0) but returns NOERROR if the option is not present.
Returns BADVERS to a EDNS option with EDNS(0) but returns NOERROR if the option is not present.
No response to a EDNS option with EDNS(0).
No response to a EDNS(0) query.
No response to a EDNS(0) 2nd and subsequent queries EDNS.

Mark
-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: marka at isc.org