[DNSOP] Re: AD review of draft-ietf-dnsop-structured-dns-error-19

["Eric Vyncke (evyncke)" <[e-mail]>]

Tiru,

Thank you for the update.

The added text in section 5.1 indeed addresses my concerns but raises a new one about the use of SHOULD without the guidance [1]. This is about the 2 SHOULD related to 4 entries, suggest to either use plain "should" or remove these parts of the sentence (they do not add a lot of value I think).

Section 5.2 has also 2 SHOULD without the required guidance per IESG statement ☹️

  *
`the server SHOULD first attempt to reduce`, in this statement a "MUST" is probably more appropriate
  *
 `the server SHOULD populate the "j" `, the consequences should probably be explained "else the user won't be able to read the 'human-readable' message' or something similar

Thanks in advance for submitting a revised I-D

Regards

-éric


[1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/statement-iesg-statement-on-clarifying-the-use-of-bcp-14-key-words/

From: tirumal reddy <[e-mail]>
Date: Monday, 25 May 2026 at 07:55
To: Eric Vyncke (evyncke) <[e-mail]>
Cc: Dan Wing <[e-mail]>; [e-mail] <[e-mail]>; Mohamed Boucadair <[e-mail]>; Benno Overeinder <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Re: AD review of draft-ietf-dnsop-structured-dns-error-19

Thanks Eric for the reminder, published revised draft https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-dnsop-structured-dns-error-20.html

-Tiru



From: Eric Vyncke (evyncke) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Date: Thursday, 21 May 2026 at 18:20
To: tirumal reddy <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> WG <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; Dan Wing <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; Mohamed Boucadair <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; Benno Overeinder <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Re: AD review of draft-ietf-dnsop-structured-dns-error-19

Tiru,

Thanks for your patience, I had a look at the PR and it seems good to me. So, please merge and resubmit.

This is a big change, but the DNSOP WG will have the opportunity to review the revised I-D during the IETF Last Call.

Regards

-éric

From: tirumal reddy <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Date: Sunday, 10 May 2026 at 07:19
To: Eric Vyncke (evyncke) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc: Mukund Sivaraman <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> WG <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; Dan Wing <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; Mohamed Boucadair <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; Benno Overeinder <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Re: AD review of draft-ietf-dnsop-structured-dns-error-19

I raised a PR https://github.com/ietf-wg-dnsop/draft-ietf-dnsop-structured-dns-error/pull/92 to address the language issue, please review.

-Tiru

On Sat, 9 May 2026 at 13:06, Eric Vyncke (evyncke) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
Mukund,

This is indeed what I would go for, same as Accept 'negotiation' over HTTP

An important change for this I-D though.

Regards

-éric

On 08/05/2026, 19:19, "Mukund Sivaraman" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:


Perhaps a client can indicate its locale in an EDNS option in the query,
and the server responds with a single localized set of fields matching
what the client requested, or if that is not available, whatever
language the server has.

Mukund