[DNSOP] draft-ietf-dnsop-extended-error status

Wes Hardaker <wjhns1@hardakers.net> Fri, 27 September 2019 23:39 UTC

Return-Path: <wjhns1@hardakers.net>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D03612021C for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 Sep 2019 16:39:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id o-eTMFCFtRsp for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 Sep 2019 16:39:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.hardakers.net (mail.hardakers.net []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 05FC11201DE for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Fri, 27 Sep 2019 16:39:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (unknown []) by mail.hardakers.net (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 7786D256D9 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Fri, 27 Sep 2019 16:39:13 -0700 (PDT)
From: Wes Hardaker <wjhns1@hardakers.net>
To: dnsop@ietf.org
Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2019 16:39:11 -0700
Message-ID: <ybly2y9z4v4.fsf@w7.hardakers.net>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.1 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/FORjokLiwiMYkP4HecfDrEZrs78>
Subject: [DNSOP] draft-ietf-dnsop-extended-error status
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: Fri, 27 Sep 2019 23:39:17 -0000

I've gone through everyone's (wonderful) comments and have addressed
almost all of them, and published a -10.  Please let me know if you
think I missed anything.  Responses to the comments will be sent out

(and sorry for the delay on this ; day-job hit me over the head hard in
the last three weeks )

Two outstanding topics:

1) A number of people have suggested adding references to other
RFCs/documents to many of the error codes.  This is probably a good
idea.  A beer or other drink in Singapore to anyone willing to do the
work to give me a list of references to add for each code.

2) One outstanding topic of discussion that I think we need to decide to
handle or table till a future document: how do we handle forwarding,
chained resolvers, and caching.  Puneed brought this up most recently in
his comments.  In the past we've pseudo-agreed that it will be rather
complex to document how to handle forwarding, etc, when some of the
error context will change upon a forward, for example.  IE,
forwarding/caching/whatever rules may end up being code specific and may
require a *lot* more thought.  So, IMHO, we have choices:

A) Label these situations as "undefined behavior" and define it in a
future document after we get more experience with deployment.  This is
typically where I've landed opinion-wise in the past, and still do
mostly now.

B) Document globally how to handle various cases (and we'll need to
enumerate them)

C) Document how to handle each one independently (or as an override if
needed to a global policy)

D) Your option here

So really, this first comes down to how important is it we handle this
case set before it goes out the door?

Wes Hardaker