Re: [DNSOP] Last Call: <draft-ietf-dnsop-extended-error-14.txt> (Extended DNS Errors) to Proposed Standard

On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 4:37 PM Wes Hardaker <wjhns1@hardakers.net> wrote:

> Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > My apologies for getting in some minor comments so late. I do not
> > suggest any technical changes.  However, at least to my eye, there are
> > some little glitches and editorial changes I would suggest.
>
> Thanks for the detailed review, comments and suggestions Donald.
> Responses inline below.  Any thing *not* mentioned below should consider
> accepted :-) A few of the editorial changes I left unchanged as well,
> since I suspect the RFC Editor will likely make the final call on
> whether commas are needed in certain spots when you and I disagree on
> whether they're needed or not.
>
> The full diff of changes from applying your changes can be found here:
>
>
> https://github.com/wkumari/draft-wkumari-dnsop-extended-error/commit/adcd34da305737e57964676cd1376263e8803239
>
> > [deletion of the rfc editor note]
>
> I  left this in, since it easily flags where help is needed.
>
> > (SERVFAIL, NXDOMAIN, REFUSED, -and even- NOERROR, etc)
>
> You removed "and even" but I'm leaving it in, since there was a lot of
> discussion around NOERROR and how that seemed odd to people.  The
> extract "and even" text helps calls needed attention to it, IMHO.
>
> > "Because long EXTRA-TEXT fields may trigger truncation,
> >  which is undesirable given the supplemental nature of
> >  EDE."
>
> I left this sentence as a hybrid of what you suggested (removing most of
> the second half), leaving in the supplemental component since I believe
> that also is a subtle thing that should be called out.  Maybe others
> believe your text is better though?
>

I think that the "supplemental..." text is important because that makes
clear that this isn't just a boilerplate description of standard DNS
behavior but is actually an important warning specific to subtle
implications of the nature of EDE.

>
> I left in your suggested "on the ... [IANA] web page as follows:", but
> I'm not sure that's the right text either.  We want the creation of a
> registry, which *happens* to be listed on a web page as well.
>
> I also do not add the "reserved" section since the IANA ranges were
> discussed extensively and the current number ranges are the result of a
> consensus I didn't want to have one person change without a lot of
> backup agreement.
>
> --
> Wes Hardaker
> USC/ISI
>
> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list
> DNSOP@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
>