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

Viktor Dukhovni <ietf-dane@dukhovni.org> Sun, 22 September 2019 05:07 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-dane@dukhovni.org>
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 ED95D12003E for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 21 Sep 2019 22:07:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, 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 toipKoMThPFG for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 21 Sep 2019 22:07:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from straasha.imrryr.org (straasha.imrryr.org [100.2.39.101]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6DCF912012C for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Sat, 21 Sep 2019 22:07:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.161] (unknown [192.168.1.161]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by straasha.imrryr.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6293D2B035B for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Sun, 22 Sep 2019 01:07:39 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\))
From: Viktor Dukhovni <ietf-dane@dukhovni.org>
In-Reply-To: <CA+9_gVuwAEthi9HU2wdw+Vf+STCwvXr4wOB4PRD_Hej6JPPbuQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 22 Sep 2019 01:07:39 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Reply-To: dnsop@ietf.org
Message-Id: <179449C3-C482-4D7A-ADA5-C21E34D9EA9D@dukhovni.org>
References: <CADyWQ+FG7qzPnLkUH7mSBca=1NfXy6YduHD4UdmcfXFjD8xC6g@mail.gmail.com> <CA+9_gVuwAEthi9HU2wdw+Vf+STCwvXr4wOB4PRD_Hej6JPPbuQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.11)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/DQfeXyPPmUvetgVOAacDklFlFP8>
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: Sun, 22 Sep 2019 05:07:45 -0000

> On Sep 20, 2019, at 5:17 PM, Puneet Sood <puneets@google.com>; wrote:
> 
> Since the consensus is that the EDEs are purely diagnostic, it would
> be good to reiterate that at the end of this paragraph.

For the record, while that was "diagnostic" was my take on the purpose
of these codes, reading other responses, I am not sure that's yet the
consensus view...  I could also live with these being actionable,
provided the text is then more clear on how to do that correctly.

If the actions based on these codes are arbitrary choices for each
implementation, with not even a clear correspondence with associated
RCODEs, that feels like too much rope to me...

-- 
	Viktor.