Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-extended-error-06.txt
Wes Hardaker <wjhns1@hardakers.net> Sat, 10 August 2019 05:19 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 5FB7F1200CD for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 9 Aug 2019 22:19:24 -0700 (PDT)
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 iVmzfsgVQ9lj for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 9 Aug 2019 22:19:23 -0700 (PDT)
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 3D7191200B4 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Fri, 9 Aug 2019 22:19:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (unknown [10.0.0.3]) by mail.hardakers.net (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 1F0C52AFC5; Fri, 9 Aug 2019 22:19:15 -0700 (PDT)
From: Wes Hardaker <wjhns1@hardakers.net>
To: Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@gmail.com>
Cc: "<dnsop@ietf.org>" <dnsop@ietf.org>
References: <156259752580.762.15467298236045518320@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAF4+nEG6JbfhUwuh=Pr3hdxozHMiUv=zK2xexQArmn+o0RJe3w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 09 Aug 2019 22:19:15 -0700
In-Reply-To: <CAF4+nEG6JbfhUwuh=Pr3hdxozHMiUv=zK2xexQArmn+o0RJe3w@mail.gmail.com> (Donald Eastlake's message of "Tue, 9 Jul 2019 23:45:12 -0400")
Message-ID: <yblzhkhiomk.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/HHOguAV3U4nkFbWU6FD_DcDU6P0>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-extended-error-06.txt
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: Sat, 10 Aug 2019 05:19:24 -0000
Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@gmail.com> writes: > 1. Maybe I'm confused but it seems to me that the RESPONSE-CODE field of 12 bits > plus the INFO-CODE field of 16 bits is 28 bits. So I don't understand the 2nd > paragraph of Section 3.3 that talks about their concatenation fitting within 24 > bits. Yep, it turns out (like someone has previous suggested in this group) that I can't add. Or more likely I missed a change spot from previous versions where the lengths were different. Anyway, the latest version has greatly simplified this, though I may have missed another spot. We need to take one more last pass before asking for a LC. But it's late now and I'm going to bed instead of trying to assume my english parsing skills will pass mustard (a phrase I've never understood). > 2. On the code point space for INFO-CODE values, the maximum possible in 16 bits is > 65535, not 65536. Actually, you just pointed out a spot in the "just posted" document that I missed *again*. Anyway, we'll increase the size of those ranges per your request as it makes sense. Though I'm not sure giving that much space to the first-come/first-served and experimental policies make that much sense. I think we'd prefer people write a specification for behaviour. -- Wes Hardaker USC/ISI
- [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-extended-err… internet-drafts
- Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-extended… Donald Eastlake
- Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-extended… Wes Hardaker