IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Evan Hunt <each@isc.org> Wed, 06 May 2015 18:33 UTC

Return-Path: <each@isc.org>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 345811A902B for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 May 2015 11:33:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.611
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.611 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=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 L2oScuYuTVOu for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 May 2015 11:33:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.ams1.isc.org (mx.ams1.isc.org [IPv6:2001:500:60::65]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 699721A8F41 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Wed, 6 May 2015 11:33:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bikeshed.isc.org (bikeshed.isc.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:3:d::19]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "mail.isc.org", Issuer "RapidSSL CA" (not verified)) by mx.ams1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9ECB81FCACE; Wed, 6 May 2015 18:33:25 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by bikeshed.isc.org (Postfix, from userid 10292) id 701DB216C1E; Wed, 6 May 2015 18:33:24 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Wed, 06 May 2015 18:33:24 +0000
From: Evan Hunt <each@isc.org>
To: 神明達哉 <jinmei@wide.ad.jp>
Message-ID: <20150506183324.GA67107@isc.org>
References: <20150501232130.GA13049@isc.org> <CAJE_bqe2FhYgCrOzh4ZRZYOO=YoJC3_QOoMwq1KLPbc30Y==mw@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <CAJE_bqe2FhYgCrOzh4ZRZYOO=YoJC3_QOoMwq1KLPbc30Y==mw@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/j4TXDn8qoin1O3xoP6UBl1Em_Us>
Cc: IETF DNSOP WG <dnsop@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Seeking discussion of draft-ietf-dnsop-cookies-01
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Wed, 06 May 2015 18:33:29 -0000

On Wed, May 06, 2015 at 11:19:07AM -0700, 神明達哉 wrote:
> 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.

"Next by thread" from msg13984 has Donald explaining his position,
though not in great detail. If I understand him correctly, he wants to
enable a server to include cookie errors even if it's chosen in this
case to return an otherwise normal NOERROR response to the client.

-- 
Evan Hunt -- each@isc.org
Internet Systems Consortium, Inc.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email