IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Re: Processing error codes in draft-ietf-dnsop-extended-error-10

Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@icann.org> Tue, 01 October 2019 00:54 UTC

Return-Path: <paul.hoffman@icann.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 98690120096 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Sep 2019 17:54:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham 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 fncWrJ8CQ8mK for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Sep 2019 17:54:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ppa5.dc.icann.org (ppa5.dc.icann.org [192.0.46.78]) (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 4FE20120077 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Mon, 30 Sep 2019 17:54:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from PFE112-CA-1.pexch112.icann.org (out.west.pexch112.icann.org [64.78.40.7]) by ppa5.dc.icann.org (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with ESMTPS id x910suXn011603 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 1 Oct 2019 00:54:57 GMT
Received: from PMBX112-W1-CA-1.pexch112.icann.org (64.78.40.21) by PMBX112-W1-CA-1.pexch112.icann.org (64.78.40.21) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Mon, 30 Sep 2019 17:54:55 -0700
Received: from PMBX112-W1-CA-1.pexch112.icann.org ([64.78.40.21]) by PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG ([64.78.40.21]) with mapi id 15.00.1473.005; Mon, 30 Sep 2019 17:54:55 -0700
From: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@icann.org>
To: "dnsop@ietf.org" <dnsop@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [DNSOP] [Ext] Re: Processing error codes in draft-ietf-dnsop-extended-error-10
Thread-Index: AQHVd+QhbeobjU6vgUCOlFePoaXUYKdFaz0A
Date: Tue, 01 Oct 2019 00:54:54 +0000
Message-ID: <0dff410f-4218-1d3a-3037-2b43fc64a86c@icann.org>
References: <CAMOjQcEtDBR29yKmOTvnx-7B7SmC9pox_kzOCKs4jBMQr1VSTA@mail.gmail.com> <yblblv15wv0.fsf@w7.hardakers.net> <6419da25-924e-8d54-0700-48a4cd6d4d34@icann.org> <yblimp92xgc.fsf@w7.hardakers.net>
In-Reply-To: <yblimp92xgc.fsf@w7.hardakers.net>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.1.1
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [192.0.47.234]
x-source-routing-agent: Processed
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <A47EE5397049AE42B53F8694048054A3@pexch112.icann.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:, , definitions=2019-09-30_14:, , signatures=0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/SelQYXvQC3SLdIG03CppHBDfc48>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Re: Processing error codes in draft-ietf-dnsop-extended-error-10
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: Tue, 01 Oct 2019 00:55:00 -0000

On 9/30/19 7:09 PM, Wes Hardaker wrote:
> Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@icann.org> writes:
> 
>> Saying "SHOULD NOT" without helping the reading understand the
>> implications is dangerous and will lead to lack of
>> interoperability. Either this document specifies the exact places
>> where an EDE can change the processing of the RCODE, or the current
>> MUST NOT wording is correct.
> 
> Did you read the new replacement sentence?
> 
>        Applications MUST continue to follow requirements from applicable
>        specs on how to process RCODEs no matter what EDE values is also
>        received.
> 
> Is that sufficient?

Yes, thank you.

--Paul Hoffman

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email