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

Wes Hardaker <wjhns1@hardakers.net> Mon, 30 September 2019 20:54 UTC

Return-Path: <wjhns1@hardakers.net>
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 29BED12016E for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Sep 2019 13:54:07 -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 aFsRSlNp6Cpp for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Sep 2019 13:54:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.hardakers.net (mail.hardakers.net [168.150.192.181]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0273D120143 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Mon, 30 Sep 2019 13:54:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (unknown [10.0.0.3]) by mail.hardakers.net (Postfix) with ESMTPA id F414D29A06; Mon, 30 Sep 2019 13:53:55 -0700 (PDT)
From: Wes Hardaker <wjhns1@hardakers.net>
To: Eric Orth <ericorth=40google.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
Cc: dnsop@ietf.org
References: <CAMOjQcEtDBR29yKmOTvnx-7B7SmC9pox_kzOCKs4jBMQr1VSTA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2019 13:53:55 -0700
In-Reply-To: <CAMOjQcEtDBR29yKmOTvnx-7B7SmC9pox_kzOCKs4jBMQr1VSTA@mail.gmail.com> (Eric Orth's message of "Mon, 30 Sep 2019 14:53:08 -0400")
Message-ID: <yblblv15wv0.fsf@w7.hardakers.net>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.1 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/dVcE2GMEo8XJWvTr8hhrLc78Tsw>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] 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: Mon, 30 Sep 2019 20:54:07 -0000

Eric Orth <ericorth=40google.com@dmarc.ietf.org> 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