Re: [auth48] [AD] [Ext] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9567 <draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-error-reporting-08> for your review

[Roy Arends <[e-mail]>]

Approved,

Thanks

Roy

> On 15 Apr 2024, at 18:38, Rebecca VanRheenen <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Hi Roy, Matt, and Warren,
> 
> Warren - We noted your approval on the AUTH48 status page for this document (see https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9567__;!!PtGJab4!_2H6l8EBkQe-rHyMmkVolW8RJ-wgyc8sSCX1cFgEoms1zrlxsQx7lWELdifCQ3gyFEebnK7xThZ0TZfi6gUI6r7y4w$ [rfc-editor[.]org]). We also made the changes in Section 6.1 that you suggest.
> 
> Roy and Matt - Please let us know if you have any further comments or if you approve the document in its current form. We will await approvals from both of you prior to moving forward in the publication process.
> 
> FILES (please refresh):
> 
> Updated XML file:
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9567.xml__;!!PtGJab4!_2H6l8EBkQe-rHyMmkVolW8RJ-wgyc8sSCX1cFgEoms1zrlxsQx7lWELdifCQ3gyFEebnK7xThZ0TZfi6gU8PhWr0w$ [rfc-editor[.]org]
> 
> Updated output files:
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9567.txt__;!!PtGJab4!_2H6l8EBkQe-rHyMmkVolW8RJ-wgyc8sSCX1cFgEoms1zrlxsQx7lWELdifCQ3gyFEebnK7xThZ0TZfi6gXecJu14g$ [rfc-editor[.]org]
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9567.pdf__;!!PtGJab4!_2H6l8EBkQe-rHyMmkVolW8RJ-wgyc8sSCX1cFgEoms1zrlxsQx7lWELdifCQ3gyFEebnK7xThZ0TZfi6gXOzWKmqw$ [rfc-editor[.]org]
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9567.html__;!!PtGJab4!_2H6l8EBkQe-rHyMmkVolW8RJ-wgyc8sSCX1cFgEoms1zrlxsQx7lWELdifCQ3gyFEebnK7xThZ0TZfi6gV2OzuOfg$ [rfc-editor[.]org]
> 
> Diff file showing all changes made during AUTH48:
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9567-auth48diff.html__;!!PtGJab4!_2H6l8EBkQe-rHyMmkVolW8RJ-wgyc8sSCX1cFgEoms1zrlxsQx7lWELdifCQ3gyFEebnK7xThZ0TZfi6gV_8SYOzQ$ [rfc-editor[.]org]
> 
> Diff files showing all changes:
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9567-diff.html__;!!PtGJab4!_2H6l8EBkQe-rHyMmkVolW8RJ-wgyc8sSCX1cFgEoms1zrlxsQx7lWELdifCQ3gyFEebnK7xThZ0TZfi6gVann2wKQ$ [rfc-editor[.]org]
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9567-rfcdiff.html__;!!PtGJab4!_2H6l8EBkQe-rHyMmkVolW8RJ-wgyc8sSCX1cFgEoms1zrlxsQx7lWELdifCQ3gyFEebnK7xThZ0TZfi6gUulIEDHA$ [rfc-editor[.]org] (side-by-side diff)
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9567-alt-diff.html__;!!PtGJab4!_2H6l8EBkQe-rHyMmkVolW8RJ-wgyc8sSCX1cFgEoms1zrlxsQx7lWELdifCQ3gyFEebnK7xThZ0TZfi6gUsSl1rFQ$ [rfc-editor[.]org] (diff showing changes where text is moved or deleted)
> 
> For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see:
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9567__;!!PtGJab4!_2H6l8EBkQe-rHyMmkVolW8RJ-wgyc8sSCX1cFgEoms1zrlxsQx7lWELdifCQ3gyFEebnK7xThZ0TZfi6gUI6r7y4w$ [rfc-editor[.]org]
> 
> Best regards,
> RFC Editor/rv
> 
> 
> 
>> On Apr 15, 2024, at 1:23 AM, Roy Arends <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>> Works for me,
>> 
>> Thanks Warren!
>> 
>> Roy
>> 
>>>> On 15 Apr 2024, at 09:15, Warren Kumari <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> On Mon, Apr 15, 2024 at 7:01 AM, Rebecca VanRheenen <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> Hi Roy, Matt, and Warren*,
>>> 
>>> Roy and Matt - We have updated the document per Roy’s responses to our followup questions. All of our questions have now been addressed. Please review the document carefully to ensure satisfaction as we do not make changes once it has been published as an RFC. Contact us with any further updates or with your approval of the document in its current form. We will await approvals from each author prior to moving forward in the publication process.
>>> 
>>> *Warren, as AD, please review and approve the change in the last paragraph in Section 6.1.1. This change Is best viewed in this diff file: https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9567-auth48diff.html__;!!PtGJab4!_2H6l8EBkQe-rHyMmkVolW8RJ-wgyc8sSCX1cFgEoms1zrlxsQx7lWELdifCQ3gyFEebnK7xThZ0TZfi6gV_8SYOzQ$ [rfc-editor[.]org] [rfc-editor.org].
>>> 
>>> 
>>> <voice="American Political Advert">
>>> My name is Warren Kumari, Operations AD, and I approve of this change.
>>> </voice>
>>> 
>>> While looking at this, I read Sec 6.1, and have a small editorial suggestion:
>>> O: "Care should be taken when more DNS resolving is needed to resolve the QNAME that contains the error report.  This resolving itself could trigger another error reporting to be created."
>>> P: "Care should be taken when additional DNS resolution is needed to resolve the QNAME that contains the error report.  This resolution itself could trigger another error reporting to be created."
>>> C: 2 proposed changes — 1: s/more/additional/  2: s/resolving/resolution/
>>> 
>>> Please note: This is just a suggestion — feel free to incorporate it or ignore it, I don't really care. Also, no need to reply either way.
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> W
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> FILES (please refresh):
>>> 
>>> Updated XML file:
>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9567.xml__;!!PtGJab4!_2H6l8EBkQe-rHyMmkVolW8RJ-wgyc8sSCX1cFgEoms1zrlxsQx7lWELdifCQ3gyFEebnK7xThZ0TZfi6gU8PhWr0w$ [rfc-editor[.]org] [rfc-editor.org]
>>> 
>>> Updated output files:
>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9567.txt__;!!PtGJab4!_2H6l8EBkQe-rHyMmkVolW8RJ-wgyc8sSCX1cFgEoms1zrlxsQx7lWELdifCQ3gyFEebnK7xThZ0TZfi6gXecJu14g$ [rfc-editor[.]org] [rfc-editor.org]
>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9567.pdf__;!!PtGJab4!_2H6l8EBkQe-rHyMmkVolW8RJ-wgyc8sSCX1cFgEoms1zrlxsQx7lWELdifCQ3gyFEebnK7xThZ0TZfi6gXOzWKmqw$ [rfc-editor[.]org] [rfc-editor.org]
>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9567.html__;!!PtGJab4!_2H6l8EBkQe-rHyMmkVolW8RJ-wgyc8sSCX1cFgEoms1zrlxsQx7lWELdifCQ3gyFEebnK7xThZ0TZfi6gV2OzuOfg$ [rfc-editor[.]org] [rfc-editor.org]
>>> 
>>> Diff file showing all changes made during AUTH48:
>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9567-auth48diff.html__;!!PtGJab4!_2H6l8EBkQe-rHyMmkVolW8RJ-wgyc8sSCX1cFgEoms1zrlxsQx7lWELdifCQ3gyFEebnK7xThZ0TZfi6gV_8SYOzQ$ [rfc-editor[.]org] [rfc-editor.org]
>>> 
>>> Diff files showing all changes:
>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9567-diff.html__;!!PtGJab4!_2H6l8EBkQe-rHyMmkVolW8RJ-wgyc8sSCX1cFgEoms1zrlxsQx7lWELdifCQ3gyFEebnK7xThZ0TZfi6gVann2wKQ$ [rfc-editor[.]org] [rfc-editor.org] https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9567-rfcdiff.html__;!!PtGJab4!_2H6l8EBkQe-rHyMmkVolW8RJ-wgyc8sSCX1cFgEoms1zrlxsQx7lWELdifCQ3gyFEebnK7xThZ0TZfi6gUulIEDHA$ [rfc-editor[.]org] [rfc-editor.org] (side-by-side diff) https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9567-alt-diff.html__;!!PtGJab4!_2H6l8EBkQe-rHyMmkVolW8RJ-wgyc8sSCX1cFgEoms1zrlxsQx7lWELdifCQ3gyFEebnK7xThZ0TZfi6gUsSl1rFQ$ [rfc-editor[.]org] [rfc-editor.org] (diff showing changes where text is moved or deleted)
>>> 
>>> For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see: https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9567__;!!PtGJab4!_2H6l8EBkQe-rHyMmkVolW8RJ-wgyc8sSCX1cFgEoms1zrlxsQx7lWELdifCQ3gyFEebnK7xThZ0TZfi6gUI6r7y4w$ [rfc-editor[.]org] [rfc-editor.org]
>>> 
>>> Thank you,
>>> RFC Editor/rv
>>> 
>>>> On Apr 11, 2024, at 2:13 PM, Roy Arends <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi Rebecca,
>>> 
>>>> On 10 Apr 2024, at 22:16, Rebecca VanRheenen <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi Roy,
>>> 
>>> Thank you for the quick reply! We have updated the document accordingly (see list of files below).
>>> 
>>> Thanks for that.
>>> 
>>> We have a few followup questions:
>>> 
>>> 1)
>>> 
>>> 8) <!-- [rfced] In Section 4.1, we see both "type A" and "type 1". Are these the same thing? If so, should they be consistent?
>>> -->
>>> 
>>> To make it consistent, maybe use:
>>> Original:
>>> The reporting resolver is unable to validate the "broken.test" RRset for type 1 (an A record), due to an RRSIG record with an expired signature.
>>> 
>>> Perhaps:
>>> The reporting resolver is unable to validate the "broken.test" RRset for type A (an RR type with value 1), due to an RRSIG record with an expired signature.
>>> 
>>> We updated the sentence above as you suggest. Are any further updates needed? The following sentences in Section 4.1 use either “type A” or “type 1” (the updated sentence is included). The sentences are listed in the order in which they appear in the text.
>>> 
>>> Current:
>>> A query for "broken.test.", type A, is sent by a reporting resolver.
>>> ...
>>> The reporting resolver is unable to validate the "broken.test." RRset for type A (an RR type with value 1), due to an RRSIG record with an expired signature.
>>> ...
>>> This QNAME indicates extended DNS error 7 occurred while trying to validate "broken.test." for a type 1 record.
>>> 
>>> That neads to be:
>>> 
>>> for a type A (an RR type with value 1) record.
>>> 
>>> ...
>>> When this query is received at the monitoring agent (the operators of the authoritative server for "a01.agent-domain.example."), the agent can determine the "test." zone contained an expired signature record
>>> (extended DNS error 7) for type A for the domain name "broken.test.".
>>> 
>>> 2)
>>> 
>>> 10) <!-- [rfced] Please review "error reporting QNAME" and "another error reporting" here and let us know if updates like the following would improve clarity.
>>> 
>>> Original:
>>> Care should be taken when more DNS resolving is needed to resolve the error reporting QNAME. This resolving itself could trigger another error reporting to be created.
>>> 
>>> Perhaps:
>>> Care should be taken when more DNS resolving is needed to resolve the error reported by the QNAME. This resolving itself could trigger another error report to be created.
>>> -->
>>> 
>>> No. This reads like we're resolving the error (as in trying to fix the error). We're resolving the QNAME that contains the error report.
>>> 
>>> Perhaps:
>>> Care should be taken when more DNS resolving is needed to resolve the QNAME that contains the error report.
>>> 
>>> We updated as you indicate above. Should the second sentence (specifically, "another error reporting to be created”) also be updated?
>>> 
>>> Original:
>>> This resolving itself could trigger another error reporting to be created.
>>> 
>>> Perhaps:
>>> This resolving itself could trigger another error report to be created.
>>> 
>>> This is better, thanks.
>>> 
>>> Or:
>>> This resolving itself could trigger creation of additional error reporting.
>>> 
>>> 3)
>>> 
>>> a) We note inconsistencies in the terms below throughout the text. Should these be uniform? If so, please let us know which form is preferred.
>>> 
>>> "a01.agent-domain.example." vs. a01.agent-domain.example
>>> 
>>> All 3 occurances should be in quotes. I think I missed the last one,
>>> 
>>> We also added the ending period to the one instance that did not have quotes (last paragraph of Section 4.1). Now, all instances appear as:
>>> 
>>> "a01.agent-domain.example.”
>>> 
>>> Ack. Happy with that.
>>> 
>>> Thanks Rebecca!
>>> 
>>> Warmly,
>>> 
>>> Roy
>>> 
>>> FILES (please refresh):
>>> 
>>> Updated XML file:
>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9567.xml__;!!PtGJab4!4qAbtBH8ZybPlMqq5TsPKXNhCqu2WrVLDcR29JeMcazEQBB_DSPSihXcIEwEKqZsR7ABnh6NB6AokUkTRFY6poLhLA$ [rfc-editor[.]org]
>>> 
>>> Updated output files:
>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9567.txt__;!!PtGJab4!4qAbtBH8ZybPlMqq5TsPKXNhCqu2WrVLDcR29JeMcazEQBB_DSPSihXcIEwEKqZsR7ABnh6NB6AokUkTRFYaebwa4Q$ [rfc-editor[.]org] https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9567.pdf__;!!PtGJab4!4qAbtBH8ZybPlMqq5TsPKXNhCqu2WrVLDcR29JeMcazEQBB_DSPSihXcIEwEKqZsR7ABnh6NB6AokUkTRFbsgSg1eQ$ [rfc-editor[.]org] https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9567.html__;!!PtGJab4!4qAbtBH8ZybPlMqq5TsPKXNhCqu2WrVLDcR29JeMcazEQBB_DSPSihXcIEwEKqZsR7ABnh6NB6AokUkTRFa5831sew$ [rfc-editor[.]org]
>>> 
>>> Diff file showing all changes made during AUTH48:
>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9567-auth48diff.html__;!!PtGJab4!4qAbtBH8ZybPlMqq5TsPKXNhCqu2WrVLDcR29JeMcazEQBB_DSPSihXcIEwEKqZsR7ABnh6NB6AokUkTRFb48-XDYg$ [rfc-editor[.]org]
>>> 
>>> Diff files showing all changes:
>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9567-diff.html__;!!PtGJab4!4qAbtBH8ZybPlMqq5TsPKXNhCqu2WrVLDcR29JeMcazEQBB_DSPSihXcIEwEKqZsR7ABnh6NB6AokUkTRFYuTJoC0Q$ [rfc-editor[.]org] https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9567-rfcdiff.html__;!!PtGJab4!4qAbtBH8ZybPlMqq5TsPKXNhCqu2WrVLDcR29JeMcazEQBB_DSPSihXcIEwEKqZsR7ABnh6NB6AokUkTRFYMkq6Aow$ [rfc-editor[.]org] (side-by-side diff) https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9567-alt-diff.html__;!!PtGJab4!4qAbtBH8ZybPlMqq5TsPKXNhCqu2WrVLDcR29JeMcazEQBB_DSPSihXcIEwEKqZsR7ABnh6NB6AokUkTRFZzMHrPiw$ [rfc-editor[.]org] (diff showing changes where text is moved or deleted)
>>> 
>>> For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see: https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9567__;!!PtGJab4!4qAbtBH8ZybPlMqq5TsPKXNhCqu2WrVLDcR29JeMcazEQBB_DSPSihXcIEwEKqZsR7ABnh6NB6AokUkTRFY18JGWeg$ [rfc-editor[.]org]
>>> 
>>> Thank you,
>>> RFC Editor/rv
>>> 
>>>> On Apr 10, 2024, at 5:09 AM, Roy Arends <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> On 9 Apr 2024, at 23:14, [e-mail] wrote:
>>> 
>>> Authors,
>>> 
>>> While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as necessary) the following questions, which are also in the XML file.
>>> 
>>> 1) <!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear in the title) for use on https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/search__;!!PtGJab4!9rpkOfp9uereWBsjeLnnTnVlFkNUzjc5xJpyf4C1jifFWOidwJ5rPqYyZc0_Z5tXsMsnoDaZk-LrxWClfuelFGqTHm_07ZA$ [rfc-editor[.]org]. -->
>>> 
>>> monitoring
>>> agent
>>> RFC8914
>>> 8914
>>> 
>>> 2) <!-- [rfced] Would replacing "where" with "to which" improve readability of this sentence?
>>> 
>>> Original:
>>> It allows an authoritative server to announce a monitoring agent where validating resolvers can report issues if those resolvers are configured to do so.
>>> 
>>> Perhaps:
>>> It allows an authoritative server to announce a monitoring agent to which validating resolvers can report issues if those resolvers are configured to do so.
>>> -->
>>> 
>>> It would improve readability. Thanks for the suggestion. Please replace.
>>> 
>>> 3) <!-- [rfced] We updated the first two definitions below to have a consistent style with the last two definitions. Please review and let us know any concerns.
>>> 
>>> Original:
>>> Reporting resolver: In the context of this document, "reporting resolver" is used as a shorthand for a validating resolver that supports DNS error reporting.
>>> 
>>> Report query: The DNS query used to report an error is called a report query. A report query is for a DNS TXT resource record type. The content of the error report is encoded in the QNAME of a DNS request to the monitoring agent.
>>> 
>>> Monitoring agent: An authoritative server that receives and responds to report queries. This facility is indicated by a domain name, referred to as the agent domain.
>>> 
>>> Agent domain: A domain name which is returned in the DNS Error Reporting EDNS0 option that indicates where DNS resolvers can send error reports.
>>> 
>>> Updated (first two entries):
>>> Reporting resolver: A validating resolver that
>>> supports DNS error reporting.
>>> 
>>> Report query: The DNS query used to report an error. A report query is for a DNS TXT resource record
>>> type. The content of the error report is encoded in the QNAME of a DNS request to the monitoring agent.
>>> 
>>> Monitoring agent: An authoritative server that receives and responds to report queries. This facility is indicated by a domain name, referred to as the "agent domain".
>>> 
>>> Agent domain: A domain name that is returned in the DNS Error Reporting EDNS0 option that indicates where DNS resolvers can send error reports.
>>> -->
>>> 
>>> Much better. Please use the suggestion.
>>> 
>>> 4) <!-- [rfced] Will "DNS Error Reporting EDNS0 option" be clear to readers? Also, may we update "that indicates" to "and indicates"?
>>> 
>>> Original:
>>> Agent domain: A domain name which is returned in the DNS Error Reporting EDNS0 option that indicates where DNS resolvers can send error reports.
>>> 
>>> Perhaps:
>>> Agent domain: A domain name that is returned in the EDNS0 Report-Channel option and indicates where DNS resolvers can send error reports.
>>> -->
>>> 
>>> Much better. Please use the suggestion.
>>> 
>>> 5) <!-- [rfced] The following text in Section 4 seems similar to (but not exactly the same as) the bulleted list in Section 6.1.1. Please review and let us know if any updates would be helpful. For example, should these lists be exactly the the same? Would it be helpful to include a pointer to Section 6.1.1 here instead of the similar text?
>>> 
>>> Original:
>>> The reporting resolver builds this QNAME by
>>> concatenating the _er label, the QTYPE, the QNAME that resulted in failure, the extended error code (as described in [RFC8914]), the label "_er" again, and the agent domain.
>>> -->
>>> 
>>> Section 4 is an overview with an example, and uses informal language to help understand the concept. It'd like to leave the text as is, but change the following:
>>> 
>>> Original:
>>> See the example in Section 4.1.
>>> 
>>> Perhaps:
>>> See the example in Section 4.1 and the specification in Section 6.1.1.
>>> 
>>> Does that work for you?
>>> 
>>> 6) <!-- [rfced] Please review "that is, once per TTL" here. Will this be clear to readers?
>>> 
>>> Original:
>>> This caching is essential. It
>>> dampens the number of report queries sent by a reporting resolver for the same problem, that is, once per TTL.
>>> 
>>> Perhaps:
>>> This caching is essential. It
>>> dampens the number of report queries sent by a reporting resolver for the same problem (that is, with caching, one report query per TTL is sent).
>>> -->
>>> 
>>> Better. Thanks.
>>> 
>>> 7) <!-- [rfced] We updated "such as [RFC8020] and [RFC8198]" as shown below. Would it be helpful to further clarify by mentioning the mechanisms?
>>> 
>>> Original:
>>> However, certain
>>> optimizations such as [RFC8020] and [RFC8198] may reduce the number of error report queries as well.
>>> 
>>> Current:
>>> However, certain
>>> optimizations, such as those described in [RFC8020] and [RFC8198], may reduce the number of error report queries as well.
>>> 
>>> Perhaps:
>>> However, certain
>>> optimizations, such as NXDOMAIN [RFC8020] and NSEC/NSEC3 [RFC8198], may reduce the number of error report queries as well.
>>> -->
>>> 
>>> Using the NXDOMAIN and NSEC/NSEC3 terms does not make it clearer. I do think the "Current" version is better than the original.
>>> 
>>> 8) <!-- [rfced] In Section 4.1, we see both "type A" and "type 1". Are these the same thing? If so, should they be consistent?
>>> -->
>>> 
>>> To make it consistent, maybe use:
>>> Original:
>>> The reporting resolver is unable to validate the "broken.test" RRset for type 1 (an A record), due to an RRSIG record with an expired signature.
>>> 
>>> Perhaps:
>>> The reporting resolver is unable to validate the "broken.test" RRset for type A (an RR type with value 1), due to an RRSIG record with an expired signature.
>>> 
>>> 9) <!-- [rfced] Should "type 1 record" here be updated to "for a type 1 record"?
>>> 
>>> Original:
>>> This QNAME indicates extended DNS error 7 occurred while trying to validate "broken.test." type 1 record.
>>> 
>>> Perhaps:
>>> This QNAME indicates extended DNS error 7 occurred while trying to validate "broken.test." for a type 1 record.
>>> -->
>>> 
>>> Yes. better, thanks.
>>> 
>>> 10) <!-- [rfced] Please review "error reporting QNAME" and "another error reporting" here and let us know if updates like the following would improve clarity.
>>> 
>>> Original:
>>> Care should be taken when more DNS resolving is needed to resolve the error reporting QNAME. This resolving itself could trigger another error reporting to be created.
>>> 
>>> Perhaps:
>>> Care should be taken when more DNS resolving is needed to resolve the error reported by the QNAME. This resolving itself could trigger another error report to be created.
>>> -->
>>> 
>>> No. This reads like we're resolving the error (as in trying to fix the error). We're resolving the QNAME that contains the error report.
>>> 
>>> Perhaps:
>>> Care should be taken when more DNS resolving is needed to resolve the QNAME that contains the error report.
>>> 
>>> 11) <!-- [rfced] We updated "agent domain field" to "AGENT DOMAIN field" to match the field name in the figure in Section 5. Are any other instances of
>>> "agent domain" referring to the field?
>>> 
>>> There are no other instances. Good catch, Thanks!
>>> 
>>> Original:
>>> The reporting resolver MUST NOT use DNS error reporting if the authoritative server returned an empty agent domain field in the EDNS0 Report-Channel option.
>>> 
>>> Updated:
>>> The reporting resolver MUST NOT use DNS error reporting if the authoritative server returned an empty AGENT DOMAIN field in the EDNS0 Report-Channel option.
>>> -->
>>> 
>>> Perfect, thanks.
>>> 
>>> 12) <!-- [rfced] To improve readability, may we update "For the benefit of the monitoring agent to get more confidence" as follows?
>>> 
>>> Original:
>>> For the benefit of the monitoring agent to get more confidence that the report is not spoofed, the reporting resolver SHOULD send error reports over TCP [RFC7766] or other connection oriented protocols or SHOULD use DNS COOKIEs [RFC7873].
>>> 
>>> Perhaps:
>>> For the monitoring agent to gain more confidence that the report is not spoofed, the reporting resolver SHOULD send error reports over TCP [RFC7766] or other connection-oriented protocols or SHOULD use DNS COOKIEs [RFC7873].
>>> -->
>>> 
>>> Yes please, thanks.
>>> 
>>> 13) <!-- [rfced] This list is Section 6.1.1 contains two instances of "A label containing the string "_er".'. Would be it be helpful to add "(again)" or something similar to the second instance?
>>> 
>>> No, that wouldn't be helpful. I think the current text is clear.
>>> 
>>> Original:
>>> * A label containing the string "_er".
>>> 
>>> * The QTYPE that was used in the query that resulted in the extended DNS error, presented as a decimal value, in a single DNS label. If additional QTYPEs were present in the query, such as described in [I-D.ietf-dnssd-multi-qtypes], they are represented as unique, ordered decimal values separated by a hyphen. As an example, if both QTYPE A and AAAA were present in the query, they are presented as the label "1-28".
>>> 
>>> * The list of non-null labels representing the query name which is the subject of the DNS error report.
>>> 
>>> * The extended DNS error, presented as a decimal value, in a single DNS label.
>>> 
>>> * A label containing the string "_er".
>>> 
>>> * The agent domain. The agent domain as received in the EDNS0 Report-Channel option set by the authoritative server.
>>> -->
>>> 
>>> 14) <!-- [rfced] Will "as a result and not the original query" be clear to readers?
>>> 
>>> Original:
>>> The "_er" labels allow the monitoring agent to differentiate between the agent domain and the faulty query name. When the specified agent domain is empty, or a null label (despite being not allowed in this specification), the report query will have "_er" as a top-level domain as a result and not the original query.
>>> 
>>> Perhaps:
>>> The "_er" labels allow the monitoring agent to differentiate between the agent domain and the faulty query name. When the specified agent domain is empty, or is a null label (despite being not allowed in this specification), the report query will have "_er" as a top-level domain as a result, but the original query will not.
>>> 
>>> No, this doesn't make sense. Maybe the following:
>>> 
>>> ,the report query will have "_er" as a top-level domain, and not the top level domain from the query name that was the subject of this error report.
>>> 
>>> -->
>>> 
>>> 15) <!-- [rfced] We note that this sentence appears in both Section 6.3 and Section 9. Please review and let us know if any updates are needed.
>>> 
>>> Original:
>>> The monitoring agent SHOULD respond to queries received over UDP that have no DNS COOKIE set with a response that has the truncation bit
>>> (TC bit) set to challenge the resolver to re-query over TCP.
>>> -->
>>> 
>>> Lets leave it in both places.
>>> 
>>> 16) <!-- [rfced] Please review "TXT resource record RDATA for this record" in these two sentences. Will this be clear to readers? Also, will readers know what "it" refers to in the second sentence?
>>> 
>>> Original:
>>> This document gives no guidance on the content of the TXT resource record RDATA for this record.
>>> ...
>>> Though this document gives no guidance on the content of the TXT resource record RDATA for this record, if the RDATA content is logged, it MUST assume the content can be malicious and take appropriate meassures to avoid exploitation.
>>> 
>>> Perhaps:
>>> This document gives no guidance on the content of the RDATA in the TXT resource record.
>>> ...
>>> Though this document gives no guidance on the content of the RDATA in the TXT resource record, if the RDATA content is
>>> logged, the monitoring agent MUST assume the content can be malicious and take appropriate measures to avoid exploitation.
>>> 
>>> Much better. Thanks!
>>> 
>>> -->
>>> 
>>> 17) <!-- [rfced] How may we update "such as [CVE-2021-44228]" for clarity?
>>> 
>>> Original:
>>> This would avoid remote code execution
>>> through logging string attacks such as [CVE-2021-44228].
>>> 
>>> Perhaps:
>>> This would avoid remote code execution
>>> through logging string attacks, such as the vulnerability desribed in [CVE-2021-44228].
>>> 
>>> Better.
>>> 
>>> Or:
>>> This would avoid remote code execution
>>> through logging string attacks, such as the scenario desribed in [CVE-2021-44228].
>>> -->
>>> 
>>> No, I like "vulnerability" over "scenario".
>>> 
>>> 18) <!-- [rfced] FYI - RFC 8499 has been obsoleted by RFC 9499. We have updated instances of 8499 to 9499. Please review and let us know any objections.
>>> -->
>>> 
>>> Perfect, thanks!
>>> 
>>> 19) <!-- [rfced] FYI - We see a date of November 26, 2021 in the URL for this reference. We have updated accordingly. Please let us know any concerns.
>>> 
>>> Perfect, thanks!
>>> 
>>> Original:
>>> [CVE-2021-44228]
>>> Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures, "CVE-2021-44228", 10 December 2021, <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/__;!!PtGJab4!9rpkOfp9uereWBsjeLnnTnVlFkNUzjc5xJpyf4C1jifFWOidwJ5rPqYyZc0_Z5tXsMsnoDaZk-LrxWClfuelFGqTjEb54f0$ [cve[.]mitre[.]org] cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2021-44228>.
>>> 
>>> Updated:
>>> [CVE-2021-44228]
>>> CVE, "CVE-2021-44228",
>>> 26 November 2021, <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/__;!!PtGJab4!9rpkOfp9uereWBsjeLnnTnVlFkNUzjc5xJpyf4C1jifFWOidwJ5rPqYyZc0_Z5tXsMsnoDaZk-LrxWClfuelFGqTjEb54f0$ [cve[.]mitre[.]org] cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2021-44228>.
>>> -->
>>> 
>>> Yes, better.
>>> 
>>> 20) <!-- [rfced] Terminology
>>> 
>>> a) We note inconsistencies in the terms below throughout the text. Should these be uniform? If so, please let us know which form is preferred.
>>> 
>>> "a01.agent-domain.example." vs. a01.agent-domain.example
>>> 
>>> All 3 occurances should be in quotes. I think I missed the last one,
>>> 
>>> "broken.test." vs. "broken.test"
>>> 
>>> It should all be "broken.test."
>>> 
>>> b) We see one instance of "report query QNAME". Should this be updated to "QNAME of the report query" (or similar)?
>>> 
>>> Original:
>>> If the report query QNAME exceeds 255 octets, it MUST NOT be sent.
>>> 
>>> Perhaps:
>>> If the QNAME of the report query exceeds 255 octets, it MUST NOT be sent.
>>> 
>>> Yes, better.
>>> 
>>> c) FYI - We made the following update for consistency with other usage in the document and in RFC 8914.
>>> 
>>> extended error > extended DNS error
>>> 
>>> Ok!
>>> 
>>> d) Should any instances of "extended DNS error" be updated to "extended DNS error code" (with "code")? For example:
>>> 
>>> Original:
>>> * The extended DNS error, presented as a decimal value, in a single DNS label.
>>> 
>>> Perhaps:
>>> * The extended DNS error code, presented as a decimal value, in a single DNS label.
>>> 
>>> Yes please.
>>> 
>>> e) This document uses "COOKIE". In RFC 7873, we see both "Cookie" and "COOKIE option". Please review and let us know if any updates are needed.
>>> 
>>> Original:
>>> For the benefit of the monitoring agent to get more confidence that the report is not spoofed, the reporting resolver SHOULD send error reports over TCP [RFC7766] or other connection oriented protocols or SHOULD use DNS COOKIEs [RFC7873].
>>> ...
>>> The monitoring agent SHOULD respond to queries received over UDP that have no DNS COOKIE set with a response that has the truncation bit
>>> (TC bit) set to challenge the resolver to re-query over TCP.
>>> ...
>>> Resolvers that send error reports SHOULD send these over TCP
>>> [RFC7766] or SHOULD use DNS COOKIEs [RFC7873].
>>> ...
>>> The monitoring agent SHOULD respond to
>>> queries received over UDP that have no DNS COOKIE set with a response that has the truncation bit (TC bit) set to challenge the resolver to re-query over TCP.
>>> -->
>>> 
>>> Good catch. They chould all be Cookie or Cookies instead of COOKIE or COOKIEs.
>>> 
>>> Thanks!.
>>> 
>>> 21) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion of the online Style Guide <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/*inclusive_language__;Iw!!PtGJab4!9rpkOfp9uereWBsjeLnnTnVlFkNUzjc5xJpyf4C1jifFWOidwJ5rPqYyZc0_Z5tXsMsnoDaZk-LrxWClfuelFGqToglVfiI$ [rfc-editor[.]org]> and let us know if any changes are needed.
>>> 
>>> Note that our script did not flag any words in particular, but this should still be reviewed as a best practice.
>>> -->
>>> 
>>> Reviewed. I did not find any issue.
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> 
>>> Let me know if you need more!
>>> 
>>> Warmly,
>>> 
>>> Roy
>>> 
>>> Thank you.
>>> 
>>> RFC Editor/rv
>>> 
>>>> On Apr 9, 2024, at 3:09 PM, [e-mail] wrote:
>>> 
>>> *****IMPORTANT*****
>>> 
>>> Updated 2024/04/09
>>> 
>>> RFC Author(s):
>>> --------------
>>> 
>>> Instructions for Completing AUTH48
>>> 
>>> Your document has now entered AUTH48. Once it has been reviewed and approved by you and all coauthors, it will be published as an RFC. If an author is no longer available, there are several remedies available as listed in the FAQ (https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/faq/__;!!PtGJab4!9rpkOfp9uereWBsjeLnnTnVlFkNUzjc5xJpyf4C1jifFWOidwJ5rPqYyZc0_Z5tXsMsnoDaZk-LrxWClfuelFGqTx1TghJA$ [rfc-editor[.]org]).
>>> 
>>> You and you coauthors are responsible for engaging other parties
>>> (e.g., Contributors or Working Group) as necessary before providing your approval.
>>> 
>>> Planning your review
>>> ---------------------
>>> 
>>> Please review the following aspects of your document:
>>> 
>>> * RFC Editor questions
>>> 
>>> Please review and resolve any questions raised by the RFC Editor that have been included in the XML file as comments marked as follows:
>>> 
>>> <!-- [rfced] ... -->
>>> 
>>> These questions will also be sent in a subsequent email.
>>> 
>>> * Changes submitted by coauthors
>>> 
>>> Please ensure that you review any changes submitted by your coauthors. We assume that if you do not speak up that you agree to changes submitted by your coauthors.
>>> 
>>> * Content
>>> 
>>> Please review the full content of the document, as this cannot change once the RFC is published. Please pay particular attention to:
>>> - IANA considerations updates (if applicable)
>>> - contact information
>>> - references
>>> 
>>> * Copyright notices and legends
>>> 
>>> Please review the copyright notice and legends as defined in RFC 5378 and the Trust Legal Provisions
>>> (TLP – https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info/__;!!PtGJab4!9rpkOfp9uereWBsjeLnnTnVlFkNUzjc5xJpyf4C1jifFWOidwJ5rPqYyZc0_Z5tXsMsnoDaZk-LrxWClfuelFGqT2x05NoU$ [trustee[.]ietf[.]org]).
>>> 
>>> * Semantic markup
>>> 
>>> Please review the markup in the XML file to ensure that elements of content are correctly tagged. For example, ensure that <sourcecode> and <artwork> are set correctly. See details at
>>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://authors.ietf.org/rfcxml-vocabulary__;!!PtGJab4!9rpkOfp9uereWBsjeLnnTnVlFkNUzjc5xJpyf4C1jifFWOidwJ5rPqYyZc0_Z5tXsMsnoDaZk-LrxWClfuelFGqTlZlhosc$ [authors[.]ietf[.]org]>.
>>> 
>>> * Formatted output
>>> 
>>> Please review the PDF, HTML, and TXT files to ensure that the formatted output, as generated from the markup in the XML file, is reasonable. Please note that the TXT will have formatting limitations compared to the PDF and HTML.
>>> 
>>> Submitting changes
>>> ------------------
>>> 
>>> To submit changes, please reply to this email using ‘REPLY ALL’ as all the parties CCed on this message need to see your changes. The parties include:
>>> 
>>> * your coauthors
>>> 
>>> * [e-mail] (the RPC team)
>>> 
>>> * other document participants, depending on the stream (e.g., IETF Stream participants are your working group chairs, the responsible ADs, and the document shepherd).
>>> 
>>> * [e-mail], which is a new archival mailing list to preserve AUTH48 conversations; it is not an active discussion list:
>>> 
>>> * More info:
>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/yb6lpIGh-4Q9l2USxIAe6P8O4Zc__;!!PtGJab4!9rpkOfp9uereWBsjeLnnTnVlFkNUzjc5xJpyf4C1jifFWOidwJ5rPqYyZc0_Z5tXsMsnoDaZk-LrxWClfuelFGqTn_2b_Bk$ [mailarchive[.]ietf[.]org]
>>> 
>>> * The archive itself:
>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/auth48archive/__;!!PtGJab4!9rpkOfp9uereWBsjeLnnTnVlFkNUzjc5xJpyf4C1jifFWOidwJ5rPqYyZc0_Z5tXsMsnoDaZk-LrxWClfuelFGqTQFKKM0g$ [mailarchive[.]ietf[.]org]
>>> 
>>> * Note: If only absolutely necessary, you may temporarily opt out of the archiving of messages (e.g., to discuss a sensitive matter). If needed, please add a note at the top of the message that you have dropped the address. When the discussion is concluded, [e-mail] will be re-added to the CC list and its addition will be noted at the top of the message.
>>> 
>>> You may submit your changes in one of two ways:
>>> 
>>> An update to the provided XML file
>>> — OR —
>>> An explicit list of changes in this format
>>> 
>>> Section # (or indicate Global)
>>> 
>>> OLD:
>>> old text
>>> 
>>> NEW:
>>> new text
>>> 
>>> You do not need to reply with both an updated XML file and an explicit list of changes, as either form is sufficient.
>>> 
>>> We will ask a stream manager to review and approve any changes that seem beyond editorial in nature, e.g., addition of new text, deletion of text, and technical changes. Information about stream managers can be found in the FAQ. Editorial changes do not require approval from a stream manager.
>>> 
>>> Approving for publication
>>> --------------------------
>>> 
>>> To approve your RFC for publication, please reply to this email stating that you approve this RFC for publication. Please use ‘REPLY ALL’, as all the parties CCed on this message need to see your approval.
>>> 
>>> Files
>>> -----
>>> 
>>> The files are available here:
>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9567.xml__;!!PtGJab4!9rpkOfp9uereWBsjeLnnTnVlFkNUzjc5xJpyf4C1jifFWOidwJ5rPqYyZc0_Z5tXsMsnoDaZk-LrxWClfuelFGqTHvkVMS4$  [rfc-editor[.]org] https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9567.html__;!!PtGJab4!9rpkOfp9uereWBsjeLnnTnVlFkNUzjc5xJpyf4C1jifFWOidwJ5rPqYyZc0_Z5tXsMsnoDaZk-LrxWClfuelFGqTftz9L-M$ [rfc-editor[.]org] https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9567.pdf__;!!PtGJab4!9rpkOfp9uereWBsjeLnnTnVlFkNUzjc5xJpyf4C1jifFWOidwJ5rPqYyZc0_Z5tXsMsnoDaZk-LrxWClfuelFGqTtv1T580$ [rfc-editor[.]org] https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9567.txt__;!!PtGJab4!9rpkOfp9uereWBsjeLnnTnVlFkNUzjc5xJpyf4C1jifFWOidwJ5rPqYyZc0_Z5tXsMsnoDaZk-LrxWClfuelFGqTX5a4f48$ [rfc-editor[.]org]
>>> 
>>> Diff file of the text:
>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9567-diff.html__;!!PtGJab4!9rpkOfp9uereWBsjeLnnTnVlFkNUzjc5xJpyf4C1jifFWOidwJ5rPqYyZc0_Z5tXsMsnoDaZk-LrxWClfuelFGqTgDp1dYs$ [rfc-editor[.]org] https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9567-rfcdiff.html__;!!PtGJab4!9rpkOfp9uereWBsjeLnnTnVlFkNUzjc5xJpyf4C1jifFWOidwJ5rPqYyZc0_Z5tXsMsnoDaZk-LrxWClfuelFGqTZTEN2y4$ [rfc-editor[.]org] (side by side)
>>> 
>>> Alt-diff of the text (allows you to more easily view changes where text has been deleted or moved):
>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9567-alt-diff.html__;!!PtGJab4!9rpkOfp9uereWBsjeLnnTnVlFkNUzjc5xJpyf4C1jifFWOidwJ5rPqYyZc0_Z5tXsMsnoDaZk-LrxWClfuelFGqTCjMRGko$ [rfc-editor[.]org]
>>> 
>>> Diff of the XML:
>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9567-xmldiff1.html__;!!PtGJab4!9rpkOfp9uereWBsjeLnnTnVlFkNUzjc5xJpyf4C1jifFWOidwJ5rPqYyZc0_Z5tXsMsnoDaZk-LrxWClfuelFGqTYFP0lts$ [rfc-editor[.]org]
>>> 
>>> The following files are provided to facilitate creation of your own diff files of the XML.
>>> 
>>> Initial XMLv3 created using XMLv2 as input:
>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9567.original.v2v3.xml__;!!PtGJab4!9rpkOfp9uereWBsjeLnnTnVlFkNUzjc5xJpyf4C1jifFWOidwJ5rPqYyZc0_Z5tXsMsnoDaZk-LrxWClfuelFGqTTH_dm8A$  [rfc-editor[.]org]
>>> 
>>> XMLv3 file that is a best effort to capture v3-related format updates only:
>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9567.form.xml__;!!PtGJab4!9rpkOfp9uereWBsjeLnnTnVlFkNUzjc5xJpyf4C1jifFWOidwJ5rPqYyZc0_Z5tXsMsnoDaZk-LrxWClfuelFGqTDZp1s6I$ [rfc-editor[.]org]
>>> 
>>> Tracking progress
>>> -----------------
>>> 
>>> The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here: https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9567__;!!PtGJab4!9rpkOfp9uereWBsjeLnnTnVlFkNUzjc5xJpyf4C1jifFWOidwJ5rPqYyZc0_Z5tXsMsnoDaZk-LrxWClfuelFGqT0p1igaE$ [rfc-editor[.]org]
>>> 
>>> Please let us know if you have any questions.
>>> 
>>> Thank you for your cooperation,
>>> 
>>> RFC Editor
>>> 
>>> --------------------------------------
>>> RFC9567 (draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-error-reporting-08)
>>> 
>>> Title : DNS Error Reporting
>>> Author(s) : R. Arends, M. Larson
>>> WG Chair(s) : Suzanne Woolf, Benno Overeinder, Tim Wicinski
>>> 
>>> Area Director(s) : Warren Kumari, Mahesh Jethanandani
>>> 
>>>