Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-extended-error-03.txt

Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@gmail.com> Sat, 22 December 2018 02:04 UTC

Return-Path: <d3e3e3@gmail.com>
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 68804130F83 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 21 Dec 2018 18:04:22 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.749
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.749 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 4yzvblv7ahGu for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 21 Dec 2018 18:04:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-it1-x12f.google.com (mail-it1-x12f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::12f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1B98C130F80 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Fri, 21 Dec 2018 18:04:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-it1-x12f.google.com with SMTP id i145so9618587ita.4 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Fri, 21 Dec 2018 18:04:21 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=29VQMMs/Z2tXiltiDIZ22DFMtdC2vWX8wcoiNHqtNOs=; b=SskxcxEZf+zW7YMzdk0Vqwd7lVD6sQKVyqmy9Z6oXLA3V0uenu6pJ02msT114JQG0W 1oFiez8JkcQ18sTws6pNroo0n2ZTKyjqzH5pQGT3wlq98bbFVnqTy4GHxFYlM0dfRhJD 5+sYeMUxFM+xCUods83SEpFzaewtn/L0JtIcUaYq6coNytT6yHZ6a6CVOGe/5aaLCfl2 tdlCEMHGXpHS7hQtSByEXG9EPVLUW0U2tT/Z10nMJz1sgfjeH6shaim3Q7ubFSystp6a waumZ6NJ2VjcrIksTZXwWeJR+8lL57qLK5cYdJTE5x4+3egs5EhXhNUR06VxaCzgWhpW uyCQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=29VQMMs/Z2tXiltiDIZ22DFMtdC2vWX8wcoiNHqtNOs=; b=QElh6bxaxsa82A0y7/DnL7+ev4LpDp1tJlKd8SeQY6PjeJ2Qn6e2VntVKUuztwlI84 YLMtNqC6/vNZ0Z0OFr3NedQ9BkSv//iClerewIfT2/gM1NPPDMegU0TKAhxQ3s1biuEg aF6wAZG/9ptASSo+8ghuMx0C6nL/htIaRT9KxyOb86Jen1RCAGbfgGNF24XRBzZBeOgo q1c/wkvyhlQH1j1SiS3iaIkm1MylHPEGk6ngm02ii0X07nU99zrZMPRPPm2+c1IATVlp emPOiSA/U1EC7MMuFgrok/eIOkBjtPUJCDIulmoExKFa812FXIJAlPZSQTUO3BDws2oz ow4A==
X-Gm-Message-State: AA+aEWac0CttCkMXCoh3ZheFRm6s/a+XbWLFsrjDjReupbnZiubcmop8 9H98Muq+rBo4xZBqWR1pIFKtoTK7PmbQxt9dz+nz0g==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AFSGD/Vk13D9YOGhazKYY4nxMK6T1nthb2Le9G44MFHlTiIxIWarDbVSRu0+p4IjI/QSOrgV9wsQyVueFUXkI7GJz40=
X-Received: by 2002:a24:89:: with SMTP id 131mr3369544ita.105.1545444260239; Fri, 21 Dec 2018 18:04:20 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <154534677023.19023.8195828695262063685@ietfa.amsl.com> <yblwoo3bxah.fsf@w7.hardakers.net>
In-Reply-To: <yblwoo3bxah.fsf@w7.hardakers.net>
From: Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2018 21:04:08 -0500
Message-ID: <CAF4+nEE9sFeoHOvc+kdiJ4L2FHByOtSumDv4Ba1kq3zK4V8THQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Wes Hardaker <wjhns1@hardakers.net>
Cc: "<dnsop@ietf.org>" <dnsop@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/ZoZLNYfabGxeE_AbDInDawFLOA8>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-extended-error-03.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: Sat, 22 Dec 2018 02:04:22 -0000

Hi,

While it is not exactly what I would want, I am satisfied with the
changes below and consider my comments resolved.

Thanks,
Donald
===============================
 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
 1424 Pro Shop Court, Davenport, FL 33896 USA
 d3e3e3@gmail.com


On Thu, Dec 20, 2018 at 6:20 PM Wes Hardaker <wjhns1@hardakers.net>; wrote:
>
> internet-drafts@ietf.org writes:
>
> >         Title           : Extended DNS Errors
> >         Authors         : Warren Kumari
> >                           Evan Hunt
> >                           Roy Arends
> >                           Wes Hardaker
> >                           David C Lawrence
> >       Filename        : draft-ietf-dnsop-extended-error-03.txt
> >       Pages           : 12
> >       Date            : 2018-12-20
>
> 4 Donald Eastlake
> .. 4.1 DONE two dimensional table is unneeded
> .. 4.2 DONE rcodes are only 4 bits

> 4 Donald Eastlake
> =================
>
>   I like the Extended Error Code using EDNS idea. This was effectively
>   what was done with TSIG and TKEY that have an expanded Error field
>   inside the RR. However:
>
>
> 4.1 DONE two dimensional table is unneeded
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>    >> I don't see any reason for the complex two-dimensional table to
>   new error codes. Given that 16 bits is available for "INFO-CODE"
>   (which I think, to follow the DNS nomenclature used in TSIG and TKEY,
>   should just be called "Error"), I don't see why these extended error
>   codes, which provide more detail beyond the top level Error code
>   value, can't be from the single unified DNS error code table. That
>   way, wherever you get a DNS Error code (from RCODE or the EDNS
>   extended error field or the TSIG or TKEY error fields or wherever,
>   there is just one table to look it up in. For example, you could
>   Reserve 4096 through 8191 for this purpose, which is probably enough
>   values :-)
>
>   + response: this was discussed multiple times in previous working
>     group meetings and on the mailing list, and the general consensus
>     was to use a multiple-lookup table.  Continue reading into the next
>     issue for further information on a decent compromise:
>
> 4.2 DONE rcodes are only 4 bits
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>   >> Since RCODEs are 4 bits, I don't see why a 16-bit RESPONSE-CODE
>   field is required. Even if you want to be able to provide additional
>   information for the 12-bit error codes of RCODE as extended by base
>   EDNS, there is still enough room in the previous 16-bit word which has
>   15 unused bits in it. Just move the RESPONSE-CODE up into the previous
>   word
>
>   + Response: you're right about the 4 bits of course.  Somehow our
>     initial remembrance of this got lost in the double table issue.  So
>     to simplify both this issue, and the previous, we've decided to
>     merge the two codes into a 4-bit RCODE value and a 12-bit INFO-CODE
>     value.  This actually allows implementers to treat it easily as two
>     codes, if they'd prefer, or a single 16b-bit code if they'd rather
>     handle it that way while preserving interoperability between
>     everything.
>
> --
> Wes Hardaker
> USC/ISI