IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] draft-ietf-dnsop-structured-dns-error: suberr registration policy

Ralf Weber <dns@fl1ger.de> Tue, 18 April 2023 14:19 UTC

Return-Path: <dns@fl1ger.de>
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 ED5C2C151543; Tue, 18 Apr 2023 07:19:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id aoSl0_bL--a1; Tue, 18 Apr 2023 07:19:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.guxx.net (smtp.guxx.net [IPv6:2a01:4f8:a0:322c::25:42]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E7D77C15153F; Tue, 18 Apr 2023 07:19:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.42.141] (p4fc210d6.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [79.194.16.214]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by nyx.guxx.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9CA7D5F404E2; Tue, 18 Apr 2023 14:19:24 +0000 (UTC)
From: Ralf Weber <dns@fl1ger.de>
To: Benjamin Schwartz <ietf@bemasc.net>
Cc: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com, dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-dnsop-structured-dns-error@ietf.org
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2023 16:19:24 +0200
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.14r5964)
Message-ID: <692C9AD9-56A2-4A70-B7A4-7A7EFC99A79D@fl1ger.de>
In-Reply-To: <CAJF-iTTWJq=8xOa+=tkQ2iXsYhttyPGGQNhaeZcq1EQVkE9Cxg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4561_1680881181_6430361D_4561_496_1_cbba461734d74dbf8116d7f476960f88@orange.com> <CAJF-iTRHVS8asiaf-fvtWZqpNdzou4zEsb36roaK-S_HMAEX2g@mail.gmail.com> <9DFB9E73-1AB8-4B24-BC59-F6ADB4252B3A@fl1ger.de> <CAJF-iTTWJq=8xOa+=tkQ2iXsYhttyPGGQNhaeZcq1EQVkE9Cxg@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/QFMUs4Y7D_7hzzxwQFc-WMaGvlY>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] draft-ietf-dnsop-structured-dns-error: suberr registration policy
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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: Tue, 18 Apr 2023 14:19:33 -0000

Moin!

On 18 Apr 2023, at 15:54, Benjamin Schwartz wrote:
> If the suberror field is mainly for communication from resolvers to
> browsers, then any solution should only move forward if it's satisfactory
> to both camps.  I can't speak for either one, but I think the localization
> problem sounds easier than the categorization problem.  I can also imagine
> using something like a URN scheme registry to punt categorization out to
> one or more third parties.

If all fails free text would be fine by me, but I’d prefer technical schemes.
I’m not sure how delegation of an URN scheme works, can you elaborate how this
works? Are there requirements for the third parties?

So long
-Ralf
——-
Ralf Weber

v2.35.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status