Re: [DNSOP] Second Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-dnsop-extended-error

Viktor Dukhovni <ietf-dane@dukhovni.org> Thu, 12 September 2019 15:34 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-dane@dukhovni.org>
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 32BC6120112 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Sep 2019 08:34:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, 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 N3gr_XV47jwm for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Sep 2019 08:34:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from straasha.imrryr.org (straasha.imrryr.org [100.2.39.101]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 90B7F12010D for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 Sep 2019 08:34:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by straasha.imrryr.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 8EA8F2A5A47; Thu, 12 Sep 2019 11:34:06 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2019 11:34:06 -0400
From: Viktor Dukhovni <ietf-dane@dukhovni.org>
To: dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <20190912153406.GK21772@straasha.imrryr.org>
Reply-To: dnsop@ietf.org
References: <CADyWQ+FG7qzPnLkUH7mSBca=1NfXy6YduHD4UdmcfXFjD8xC6g@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CADyWQ+FG7qzPnLkUH7mSBca=1NfXy6YduHD4UdmcfXFjD8xC6g@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.12.1 (2019-06-15)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/P16rYfe9MntWesi68shoQMKEClU>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Second Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-dnsop-extended-error
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: Thu, 12 Sep 2019 15:34:11 -0000

On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 09:51:25AM -0400, Tim Wicinski wrote:

> - Viktor's comments from 11 September will be rolled into the WGLC
>   comments, which means I'll be tracking them with the authors.

Much appreciated, thanks!

FWIW, on the hot topic of conflict between RCODE and extended RCODE,
Paul Hoffman's latest comment:

    Proposal: add the following sentence to the end of the abstract:
    "Extended error information does not change the processing of
    RCODEs."

    Proposal: add to the end of the Introduction: Applications MUST
    NOT change the processing of RCODEs in messages based on extended
    error codes.

seems to align with my take on the interaction of EDEs as a (to
coin a phrase) diagnostic refinement rather than "replacement" of
the RCODE.

>From a related nomenclature perspective, I wonder whether there
might be any confusion between the existing high 8 bits of RCODE
in the EDNS OPT pseudo-header (MSB octet of the TTL) and the proposed
new "Extended DNS Error Code".  Perhaps "Extended RCODE" and "Extended
DNS Error Code" are sufficiently similar terms to warrant a brief
comment to the effect that the proposed EDEs are diagnostic refinements
of the existing "Extended RCODE", which is distinct from EDEs and
remains the definitive status of the response...

-- 
	Viktor.