Re: [DNSOP] Second Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-dnsop-extended-error

Wes Hardaker <> Fri, 27 September 2019 23:42 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E95B120071 for <>; Fri, 27 Sep 2019 16:42:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0g7fRwpzuYEH for <>; Fri, 27 Sep 2019 16:42:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6788D120026 for <>; Fri, 27 Sep 2019 16:42:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (unknown []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPA id C47232DD7C; Fri, 27 Sep 2019 16:41:59 -0700 (PDT)
From: Wes Hardaker <>
To: Stephane Bortzmeyer <>
Cc: Tim Wicinski <>, dnsop <>
References: <> <>
Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2019 16:41:59 -0700
In-Reply-To: <> (Stephane Bortzmeyer's message of "Tue, 17 Sep 2019 09:56:20 +0200")
Message-ID: <>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.1 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Second Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-dnsop-extended-error
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2019 23:42:11 -0000

Stephane Bortzmeyer <> writes:

Thanks Stephane,

Thanks for the comments.  Responses are inline below in my tracking
notes below.

14.3 DONE Stephane Bortzmeyer

  IMHO, the document is good. I like the fact there is no longer a
  limitation of a given EDE to some RCODEs (it makes things simpler).

  Some details, all editorial:

14.3.1 DONE it could be a good idea to add more specific references for the

  EDE. For instance, 3 "Stale Answer" could have a reference to

  + Rseponse that seems popular; I'll try to do this where I can.

14.3.2 DONE I think that many people will be confused with 15, 16, 17 and 18.


  * remove 18, which is redundant with 15 (if the user chooses the
  resolver, and he should have the right to do so, 15 and 18 are the
  same). 18 is meaningful only if the user does have a simple way to
  change this behaviour.
  * Add to the definition of 15 "The policy was decided by the server
  * Add to the definition of 16 "This means that the policy was
  not decided by the server administrators, and it is probably useless
  to complain to them".

  + Response: Those three codes were supplied in a previous comment
    round and they are supposed to indicate policies being applied from
    different sources.  Can you check the new text of them to see if
    they are more understandable now?

Wes Hardaker