IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] draft-ietf-dnsop-extended-error code options

tjw ietf <tjw.ietf@gmail.com> Mon, 13 November 2017 10:43 UTC

Return-Path: <tjw.ietf@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 66EB9124BE8 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 Nov 2017 02:43:38 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.698
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.698 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham 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 fCiNtPE3uBD2 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 Nov 2017 02:43:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wm0-x230.google.com (mail-wm0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::230]) (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 5D353120726 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Mon, 13 Nov 2017 02:43:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wm0-x230.google.com with SMTP id r68so14187899wmr.3 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Mon, 13 Nov 2017 02:43:36 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=N44/itIUfaJZZtPn3YM0AUiiH2hN1Wl1HWyUHVCjwbY=; b=ALRluGuW42yguG/IwmFIy8O+4eF/A8DhclQug1looS4vwr5VM8If/PsvHmES5zjaHN YHoGgyqcT/PE0byPbi0aBSUSMYRLidkAgAU9O6C9T0hOlmaQ3MFQpS1RuBWALAygD0rG TNGZFLzlNVh52oimRV5BW3VqhD6yO2ajeRx5AHmRLp1j09X9x7bxw5xqpcS2xkEaWEZh +sRuPlIwMyEWfItMQ2+WFMTrkxppubG3CBnNQSHBHYlgTzw4DxyUG5dF0KKzN1dH7YPi Z8eEjmIMeWdZfs2BlqjbFtHiwP1Sd3UPrao3CXzuNO/ufnifnezfVjnRo1fi4Q27721/ LG2Q==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=N44/itIUfaJZZtPn3YM0AUiiH2hN1Wl1HWyUHVCjwbY=; b=c8DiSfGoiED5Qg92lhkH783Va4VpftleMzf5n5ZFmfJRjz5RWi/UwNcFJnhtLUJJw5 Pma6g7iYCbIFlaq1sD4wY1mSbegHRc6cIFGUyoE0Nt6TgSvaBYNp8wWWcKT8fAVzaL0r sI9vQ2pfSuxlgRMs8jAG/QPli/ay7okpJOFdbVqNT2lHZ7ApZuM5txab4g9yVSWR205k 0kBcMnAgUGNpTAqYHOFOrdAiMsqEn1CW8fHZ5MUY0hv7L/YmbL/B/h6pb0iXtR+CB9TG BVVpT6BezV+uoRaE/mjov9Azv/XRcQt7J1iHUtuwHaHRuLgaGXEd5wV/qHZasJWaKFTb efYg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AJaThX4vbAPakKHkK1NhX6ChLsdW1ntWATxxNJO7OswWjWZOJqVNt+l4 WURUfRClhF8hUR6NvL9NJqFMW8EYSRBp/bIxFXA=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGs4zMZSlVBh9rox31VfSfotAEh619kvl4IwSCG2EJ1GWsDsfsaNOmXkYVreKmcmyEQGEbCmY1VdGc45YLlWAKL8/6Y=
X-Received: by 10.28.100.212 with SMTP id y203mr6280469wmb.64.1510569814896; Mon, 13 Nov 2017 02:43:34 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.223.196.169 with HTTP; Mon, 13 Nov 2017 02:43:34 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <yblpo9md8fk.fsf@wu.hardakers.net>
References: <yblpo9md8fk.fsf@wu.hardakers.net>
From: tjw ietf <tjw.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2017 18:43:34 +0800
Message-ID: <CADyWQ+G-e+zqGkFK7vPQdXBDRvyv-Gxw75N1z+A6L8ULR=+izQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Wes Hardaker <wjhns1@hardakers.net>
Cc: dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c0531c039b5ec055ddaf1d8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/bBCgVF5S_brfP7oM55lhd1pkq7M>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] draft-ietf-dnsop-extended-error code options
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Mon, 13 Nov 2017 10:43:38 -0000

To follow up from the meeting this morning,  it sounded from the room that
in the case of these
four options, #4 was the one which makes the most sense.

tim

On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 6:39 AM, Wes Hardaker <wjhns1@hardakers.net> wrote:

>
> Folks,
>
> We were given feedback during the call for adoption to "use numeric
> range codes like those in HTTP".  Following that, Warren and I sat down
> and came up with some possibilities and would like your feedback about
> which of these options you would prefer:
>
>   1. Individual codes assigned one at a time, per the existing doc
>
>   2. HTTP like: integer ranges where NNYY indicates the NN integer rcode
>      and YY indicates the sub-code.  Note that this needs a 32 bit error
>      code field.
>
>   3. Use a 16 bit error code field, with the 16 bits differ per rcode.
>      Thus, clients would need to use the combination of rcode and error
>      code to determine the error.
>
>   4. 32 bit code field, repeating rcode from elsewhere in the packet
>      Like #2, but copies the rcode directly into the error code header
>      within the extended-error component of the packet.  Redundant but
>      clear that the entire 32 bits are needed.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> --
> Wes Hardaker
> USC/ISI
>
> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list
> DNSOP@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email