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

Viktor Dukhovni <> Thu, 12 September 2019 15:34 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 32BC6120112 for <>; Thu, 12 Sep 2019 08:34:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
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 ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id N3gr_XV47jwm for <>; Thu, 12 Sep 2019 08:34:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 90B7F12010D for <>; Thu, 12 Sep 2019 08:34:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by (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 <>
To: dnsop <>
Message-ID: <>
References: <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.12.1 (2019-06-15)
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Second Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-dnsop-extended-error
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-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

    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...