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

[Viktor Dukhovni <[e-mail]>]

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.