Re: [DNSOP] new EDE draft with a few changes
Wes Hardaker <wjhns1@hardakers.net> Wed, 15 January 2020 17:00 UTC
Return-Path: <wjhns1@hardakers.net>
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 28F73120892 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Jan 2020 09:00:29 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
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 ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id q_2l25uvLutt for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Jan 2020 09:00:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.hardakers.net (mail.hardakers.net [168.150.192.181]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5E1331208A2 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Wed, 15 Jan 2020 09:00:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (unknown [10.0.0.3]) by mail.hardakers.net (Postfix) with ESMTPA id E00ED2D65A; Wed, 15 Jan 2020 09:00:21 -0800 (PST)
From: Wes Hardaker <wjhns1@hardakers.net>
To: Eric Orth <ericorth@google.com>
Cc: Wes Hardaker <wjhns1@hardakers.net>, dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>
References: <ybl36dh5ogq.fsf@w7.hardakers.net> <CAMOjQcHECyrc1cyvev7zsCheXoU2YJjA2TKbrprywjHq6raA1g@mail.gmail.com> <ybleews4dt4.fsf@w7.hardakers.net> <CAMOjQcG1iXwHeNNYT0L0tS1shM7yTaHqoD=MYqSO30ZROfctRw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2020 09:00:21 -0800
In-Reply-To: <CAMOjQcG1iXwHeNNYT0L0tS1shM7yTaHqoD=MYqSO30ZROfctRw@mail.gmail.com> (Eric Orth's message of "Fri, 27 Dec 2019 12:11:17 -0500")
Message-ID: <ybl36cgfye2.fsf@w7.hardakers.net>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.3 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/Gibs1InqLWTGFm-JLiZwwh0E8ok>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] new EDE draft with a few changes
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: Wed, 15 Jan 2020 17:00:29 -0000
Eric Orth <ericorth@google.com> writes: > Here is the text I suggested on 2019-12-02: "Long EXTRA-TEXT fields may cause truncation and bad > resolve performance, which is usually undesirable for the supplemental nature of EDE. Operators > setting the field SHOULD avoid setting unnecessarily long contents, especially when it can be > determined that doing so will cause truncation." Excellent, thanks. I've adapted it to the following: <section title="Extended DNS Error Processing"> <t>When the response grows beyond the requestor's UDP payload size <xref target="RFC6891" />, servers SHOULD truncate messages by dropping EDE options before dropping other data from packets. Implementations SHOULD set the truncation bit when dropping EDE options. Long EXTRA-TEXT fields may trigger truncation, which is usually undesirable for the supplemental nature of EDE. Implementers and operators creating EDE options SHOULD avoid setting unnecessarily long EXTRA-TEXT contents to avoid truncation.</t> Hopefully you're ok with that? > > Regarding forwarding: Making it implementer-choice generally seems > > good to me. But I am unsure what the current draft means by "properly > > attributed". What is the proper way to attribute an EDE? > > Well, the wording there that we put is was designed to indicate you > should somehow describe where you got the information from. But we're > not prescribing how, since that's implementation dependent. Any > suggested text you'd prefer? > > I think my concern comes from the word "properly" since that implies that there's a specific > prescribed way to do it. Maybe change the sentence to something along the lines of "When doing so, > the source of the error SHOULD be attributed in EXTRA-TEXT if doing so is reasonable for the > contents of that field, since an EDNS0 [...]". Gives a hint of how things can be attributed while > avoiding implying that there's a standardized way to do so. > I like that, but shortened it a bit to: When doing so, the source of the error SHOULD be attributed in the EXTRA-TEXT field, since an EDNS0 option received by the original client will be perceived only to have come from the resolver or forwarder sending it. Sound ok? -- Wes Hardaker USC/ISI
- [DNSOP] new EDE draft with a few changes Wes Hardaker
- Re: [DNSOP] new EDE draft with a few changes Eric Orth
- Re: [DNSOP] new EDE draft with a few changes Wes Hardaker
- Re: [DNSOP] new EDE draft with a few changes Eric Orth
- Re: [DNSOP] new EDE draft with a few changes Wes Hardaker
- Re: [DNSOP] new EDE draft with a few changes Eric Orth