Re: [DNSOP] responses to dnsop extended errors comments

Wes Hardaker <wjhns1@hardakers.net> Wed, 21 August 2019 19:18 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 3274C120128 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 21 Aug 2019 12:18:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 AwljO75zlhBb for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 21 Aug 2019 12:18:17 -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 C4B7912095E for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Wed, 21 Aug 2019 12:18:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (unknown [10.0.0.3]) by mail.hardakers.net (Postfix) with ESMTPA id BACD121A72; Wed, 21 Aug 2019 12:18:13 -0700 (PDT)
From: Wes Hardaker <wjhns1@hardakers.net>
To: Ray Bellis <ray@bellis.me.uk>
Cc: dnsop@ietf.org
References: <yblk1blio9q.fsf@w7.hardakers.net> <497f138a-1cc8-216e-1ce8-c6af994041ec@bellis.me.uk>
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2019 12:18:13 -0700
In-Reply-To: <497f138a-1cc8-216e-1ce8-c6af994041ec@bellis.me.uk> (Ray Bellis's message of "Fri, 16 Aug 2019 11:39:11 +0100")
Message-ID: <yblk1b672fe.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/Nc4JVLjl2i2RKuoN_kQjp75uat4>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] responses to dnsop extended errors comments
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, 21 Aug 2019 19:18:19 -0000

Ray Bellis <ray@bellis.me.uk> writes:

> Consensus calls for WG documents are supposed to be made on the list.

It's always possible to revert changes.

> I *like* the RCODE binding.

Anyone else?

(I did too, but the general consensus on the list and in discussions
seemed to be to remove it, especially because it was hampering real-implementations)
-- 
Wes Hardaker
USC/ISI