Re: [DNSOP] Seeking discussion of draft-ietf-dnsop-cookies-01

It appeared from me from the meeting in Dallas and the sparse list 
discussion is while the error codes would seem "interesting/useful", 
there is no good use case to show usefulness, which is my Mr. Andrews 
did not implement them.

I was approaching this (and as we approach the idea of WGLC) that we 
drop the error codes for the time being since there is no working 
implementation; and there is no strong desire for them.

I would rather lean in this direction, remove the error codes, and send 
the draft into WGLC as "Experimental".   Does the working group have any 
strong opinions on this position?

tim

On 5/6/15 2:19 PM, 神明達哉 wrote:
> At Fri, 1 May 2015 23:21:30 +0000,
> Evan Hunt <each@isc.org> wrote:
>
>> The chief difference between the two is the presence of an error code field
>> in Eastlake cookies; Andrews found it redundant/unnecessary (as discussed
>> in https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsop/current/msg13984.html).
>> The hope was that including both mechanisms in the draft would lead to
>> a working group discussion about whether the error code is, in fact,
>> necessary or desirable; unfortunately, not much discussion has happened
>> yet.
>
> Can someone explain why we'd need the separate error codes based on
> the position of supporting them (i.e, not to persuade others on
> dropping them)?  msg13984.html was basically written to argue against
> them, so it could potentially and unintentionally be biased.  I'll try
> to find any such explanation myself, but if someone already knows it
> better can do that, it would also help.
>
> --
> JINMEI, Tatuya
>
> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list
> DNSOP@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
>