Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-extended-error-16.txt
Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org> Thu, 14 May 2020 06:09 UTC
Return-Path: <marka@isc.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 CA4763A0BAB for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 May 2020 23:09:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable 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 tK4rLHMKaOMm for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 May 2020 23:09:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.pao1.isc.org (mx.pao1.isc.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:0:2::2b]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 73E393A0BA5 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Wed, 13 May 2020 23:09:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from zmx1.isc.org (zmx1.isc.org [149.20.0.20]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx.pao1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 49FF93AB005; Thu, 14 May 2020 06:09:41 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from zmx1.isc.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zmx1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3DA6E160042; Thu, 14 May 2020 06:09:41 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zmx1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 29503160066; Thu, 14 May 2020 06:09:41 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from zmx1.isc.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (zmx1.isc.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id S20H4NW6PX2J; Thu, 14 May 2020 06:09:41 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [172.30.42.99] (unknown [49.2.101.160]) by zmx1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 59700160042; Thu, 14 May 2020 06:09:40 +0000 (UTC)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.5\))
From: Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org>
In-Reply-To: <CA+9_gVtG9bxoj3czW7wgcHoRq7e8B3VyoKd+5-Ba4wbZ_LDFuA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 14 May 2020 16:09:34 +1000
Cc: IETF DNSOP WG <dnsop@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <98FA896F-5034-40CE-8B25-15DA230FBBB8@isc.org>
References: <158871188730.7528.4018207019268407373@ietfa.amsl.com> <CA+9_gVtG9bxoj3czW7wgcHoRq7e8B3VyoKd+5-Ba4wbZ_LDFuA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Puneet Sood <puneets=40google.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.5)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/SJUIdHMAPMbMcl2J1A7DdTzpMNQ>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-extended-error-16.txt
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, 14 May 2020 06:09:44 -0000
> On 14 May 2020, at 15:48, Puneet Sood <puneets=40google.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: > > Google Public DNS is planning to implement this draft in responses > from us (recursive resolver) to clients. > > *** Question: When can we expect to have an EDNS option code assigned > for the EDE option? It’s already assigned. See the IANA registry. The value is 15. > *** Request for clarification on Section 3. Extended DNS Error Processing > The text in this section (and in the introduction) implies that a > response with a NOERROR RCODE may contain an EDE option. > "Receivers MUST be able to accept EDE codes and EXTRA-TEXT in > all messages, including those with a NOERROR RCODE, but need not act > on them" > > Scenario: Response has a NOERROR RCODE and contains some response RRs. > If the client sent an EDE option and the server supports EDE, is the > expectation that the server should always include the EDE option? No. While not explicitly specified a server would only include a EDE if it have something extended to report. There is also no requirement for there to be a EDE in the request before sending a EDE in a response. If EDE was expected to be in the request then there would have been a request format specified. All EDNS clients should handle unknown EDNS options in responses as that is a requirement of the base EDNS specification. > If the server includes an EDE option in the response, what is the > right EDE code to use? EDE code 0 [other] seems the closest but it > still implies an error. Also the description for it suggests including > EXTRA-TEXT which would not be useful. > > If the server does not include an EDE option in the response, the > response looks A-OK to the client. However if the client is attempting > to detect EDE option support on the server it might incorrectly assume > the server does not support EDE. There is no reliable way to determine if a server supports EDE. There is no requirement to return any given EDE. Which EDE return (if any) is up to the server developer. > To simplify the NOERROR scenario, can we have a no error EDE code > similar to the NOERROR RCODE? With this a server can include an EDE > option in all responses to queries containing an EDE option. > > Thanks, > Puneet > > > On Tue, May 5, 2020 at 4:52 PM <internet-drafts@ietf.org> wrote: >> >> >> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. >> This draft is a work item of the Domain Name System Operations WG of the IETF. >> >> Title : Extended DNS Errors >> Authors : Warren Kumari >> Evan Hunt >> Roy Arends >> Wes Hardaker >> David C Lawrence >> Filename : draft-ietf-dnsop-extended-error-16.txt >> Pages : 15 >> Date : 2020-05-05 >> >> Abstract: >> This document defines an extensible method to return additional >> information about the cause of DNS errors. Though created primarily >> to extend SERVFAIL to provide additional information about the cause >> of DNS and DNSSEC failures, the Extended DNS Errors option defined in >> this document allows all response types to contain extended error >> information. Extended DNS Error information does not change the >> processing of RCODEs. >> >> >> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-extended-error/ >> >> There are also htmlized versions available at: >> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dnsop-extended-error-16 >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-dnsop-extended-error-16 >> >> A diff from the previous version is available at: >> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-dnsop-extended-error-16 >> >> >> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission >> until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. >> >> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: >> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> DNSOP mailing list >> DNSOP@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop > > _______________________________________________ > DNSOP mailing list > DNSOP@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka@isc.org
- [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-extended-err… internet-drafts
- Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-extended… Puneet Sood
- Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-extended… Mark Andrews
- Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-extended… Puneet Sood