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

Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr> Tue, 17 September 2019 07:56 UTC

Return-Path: <bortzmeyer@nic.fr>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3DF7B1200F7 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 Sep 2019 00:56:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7o109355JeqX for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 Sep 2019 00:56:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx4.nic.fr (mx4.nic.fr [IPv6:2001:67c:2218:2::4:12]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 963AA1200F3 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 17 Sep 2019 00:56:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx4.nic.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx4.nic.fr (Postfix) with SMTP id E5516280714; Tue, 17 Sep 2019 09:56:20 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by mx4.nic.fr (Postfix, from userid 500) id DF60B280752; Tue, 17 Sep 2019 09:56:20 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from relay01.prive.nic.fr (relay01.prive.nic.fr [IPv6:2001:67c:2218:15::11]) by mx4.nic.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id D7D1E280714; Tue, 17 Sep 2019 09:56:20 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from b12.nic.fr (b12.tech.ipv6.nic.fr [IPv6:2001:67c:1348:7::86:133]) by relay01.prive.nic.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id D427A642A7B6; Tue, 17 Sep 2019 09:56:20 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by b12.nic.fr (Postfix, from userid 1000) id C1DF3401A0; Tue, 17 Sep 2019 09:56:20 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2019 09:56:20 +0200
From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr>
To: Tim Wicinski <tjw.ietf@gmail.com>
Cc: dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <20190917075620.avbllsx6kwbiof2z@nic.fr>
References: <CADyWQ+FG7qzPnLkUH7mSBca=1NfXy6YduHD4UdmcfXFjD8xC6g@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CADyWQ+FG7qzPnLkUH7mSBca=1NfXy6YduHD4UdmcfXFjD8xC6g@mail.gmail.com>
X-Operating-System: Debian GNU/Linux 9.9
X-Kernel: Linux 4.9.0-9-amd64 x86_64
X-Charlie: Je suis Charlie
Organization: NIC France
X-URL: http://www.nic.fr/
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170113 (1.7.2)
X-Bogosity: No, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000001, version=1.2.2
X-PMX-Version: 6.0.0.2142326, Antispam-Engine: 2.7.2.2107409, Antispam-Data: 2019.9.17.74816
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/8nG7eANm0ZkXEk-s9d4d80K4PjI>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Second Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-dnsop-extended-error
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <dnsop.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dnsop/>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsop@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2019 07:56:26 -0000

On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 09:51:25AM -0400,
 Tim Wicinski <tjw.ietf@gmail.com>; wrote 
 a message of 90 lines which said:

> We had such great comments the first time we did a Working Group
> Last Call for draft-ietf-dnsop-extended-error, that the chairs
> decided a second one would be even better.

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:

* it could be a good idea to add more specific references for the
EDE. For instance, 3 "Stale Answer" could have a reference to
draft-ietf-dnsop-serve-stale.

* I think that many people will be confused with 15, 16, 17 and 18.
Suggestions:
  * 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 administrators"
  * 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".