Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Re: draft-ietf-dnsop-extended-error and combinations of EDEs and RCODEs

[Vladimír Čunát <[e-mail]>]

On 9/12/19 8:10 PM, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
> SERVFAIL means,  and will continue to mean, I can't help you, better luck next
> time (or elsewhere).
>
> The new EDEs are *diagnostic* detail to aid in troubleshoots, but do not
> override RCODEs.  They are not a more fine-grained RCODE one might "act on".
> If we want more fine-grained *actionable* codes, there's plenty of room for
> more values in the 12-bit EDNS RCODE.
>
> [ I chatted off-list with Wes, the above appears to match his take, with a bit
>   luck also rough WG consensus... ]

My understanding was that it was meant for resolvers to change e.g.
their retrying behavior based on the EDEs in some cases, even after
removing that "Retry flag".  I did consider that a significant part of
the (original) motivation, even we did not implement that in the first
prototype (as only server-side was done).

I certainly agree this issue should better be explicitly stated in the
final text.  At least assuming the WG consensus will be that they don't
want resolvers acting on the EDE codes in any way except for diagnostics
(possibly with RFC2119 qualifier).

--Vladimir