Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-extended-error-08.txt

Wes Hardaker <> Sat, 10 August 2019 18:57 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 32C2B120115; Sat, 10 Aug 2019 11:57:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id f-tuo-vSjhyC; Sat, 10 Aug 2019 11:57:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9E0541200F6; Sat, 10 Aug 2019 11:57:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (unknown []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 180B62A677; Sat, 10 Aug 2019 11:57:56 -0700 (PDT)
From: Wes Hardaker <>
References: <>
Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2019 11:57:56 -0700
In-Reply-To: <> (internet-drafts's message of "Fri, 09 Aug 2019 22:36:54 -0700")
Message-ID: <>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.1 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-extended-error-08.txt
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2019 18:57:58 -0000 writes:

> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
> This draft is a work item of the Domain Name System Operations WG of
> the IETF.

A quick update on the draft status and what big changes are published in -08:

1) We removed the rcode binding/copying, after good discussion with
implementation issues at IETF105.  This turned out to be tricky to
implement, since in many cases the EDE information is generated before
an RCODE is actually known.  So the draft is now just a list of un-bound
info codes.

2) The R bit is similarily dropped, due to (un)popular demand.  There
was a lot of discussion about its usefulness, especially being
unauthenticated, and it was clear most (all?) implementations were not
going to look at it.  So out it goes.

The result of #1 and #2 is a very clean packet now, which should be
simple to implement and parse :-)

3) As to the draft status, we went back and processed all comments up
until yesterday and the draft reflects current consensus as we know it.
[we recognize there are comments today that we haven't read yet].  It
has *not* been picked for all possible nits, and needs a complete pass
at this point.  Feel free to give us high level concept suggestions
about the re architecture of everything, or if you're really bored you
could give us grammatical recommendations too, but there will be a lot
and it might be wiser to just wait till we take a pass and push a -09. 

4) Now that this has had multiple implementations (though they'll need
to change after the packet format and code changes [that they
requested]), this is likely ready for last call after passing through
the document for nits and addressing any last comments raised.  We'll
communicate with the chairs about the timing of a LC.

Wes Hardaker