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

[Wes Hardaker <[e-mail]>]

Eric Orth <ericorth=[e-mail]> writes:

> I object to the addition of "Receivers MUST NOT change the processing
> of RCODEs in messages based on extended error codes."

Actually, I agree with you.  That text was from suggestion and I put it
in unaltered.  I thought about changing it to a SHOULD NOT.

But, I like some of your suggestions:

> *Something like "applications MUST continue to follow requirements from
> applicable specs on how to process rcodes no matter what EDE is also
> received" also seems reasonable.  Clarifies that those cases where
> requirements do exist on how an application acts on errors still apply but
> doesn't pretend that the EDE spec now tells the application what to do in
> all cases.

I think your point is valid and follows the intent: EDE is *not*
supposed to supersede other specifications that specify how to process a
DNS response.

> *Something like "applications SHOULD interpret EDE as supplemental to rcode
> rather than as a replacement" also seems reasonable.  Clarifies the
> communicated meaning of the code without over prescribing how the
> application acts on that meaning.

Again, makes sense.  I think it's covered by your other sentence though?
(which I've just replaced the previous sentence with)

-- 
Wes Hardaker
USC/ISI