Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-extended-error-10.txt

Wes Hardaker <wjhns1@hardakers.net> Tue, 01 October 2019 23:36 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 C5ECA120132 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 1 Oct 2019 16:36:05 -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 G8DaycuIRtrE for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 1 Oct 2019 16:36:03 -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 9880512012C for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 1 Oct 2019 16:36:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (unknown [10.0.0.3]) by mail.hardakers.net (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 0979A29D85; Tue, 1 Oct 2019 16:36:03 -0700 (PDT)
From: Wes Hardaker <wjhns1@hardakers.net>
To: Viktor Dukhovni <ietf-dane@dukhovni.org>
Cc: dnsop@ietf.org
References: <156962713660.24718.71133858140531907@ietfa.amsl.com> <CEC273B9-3EE4-4DEB-BA38-FCF90819C0AF@dukhovni.org> <yblwodp2xkx.fsf@w7.hardakers.net> <15B56708-EDDA-4EDF-81AD-EC11BFD60717@dukhovni.org>
Date: Tue, 01 Oct 2019 16:36:02 -0700
In-Reply-To: <15B56708-EDDA-4EDF-81AD-EC11BFD60717@dukhovni.org> (Viktor Dukhovni's message of "Mon, 30 Sep 2019 21:22:15 -0400")
Message-ID: <yblo8z0hwd9.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/JbQB1N1RI3vgPEsLQFXKRe0qYho>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-extended-error-10.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: Tue, 01 Oct 2019 23:36:06 -0000

Viktor Dukhovni <ietf-dane@dukhovni.org> writes:

> > On Sep 30, 2019, at 7:06 PM, Wes Hardaker <wjhns1@hardakers.net> wrote:
> > 
> >> Which raises another question: Can an OPT RR legitimately carry more
> >> than one EDE option, and thereby communicate multiple errors?  Such as
> >> perhaps the above hypothetical with some RRSIGs expired, and some not
> >> yet vlid.
> > 
> > Yes, the draft discusses including multiple EDE reports.
> 
> I appears that text discussing the possibility of multiple EDE values
> present in earlier drafts may have been inadvertently removed in -07.
> I think such text should be restored, making it clear that the OPT
> record may contain multiple pertinent EDE values.

Good catch.  That notion did get removed by accident.

How does this sound:

      Senders MAY include more than one EDE option and receivers MUST be
      able to accept (but not necessarily process or act on) multiple
      EDE options in a DNS message.

-- 
Wes Hardaker
USC/ISI