IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Wes Hardaker <wjhns1@hardakers.net> Fri, 30 August 2019 23:27 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 B36A8120091 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 30 Aug 2019 16:27:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
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 mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ClgBz2N6BMpP for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 30 Aug 2019 16:27:51 -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 9A60912004C for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Fri, 30 Aug 2019 16:27:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (unknown [10.0.0.3]) by mail.hardakers.net (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 377CC2CB4F; Fri, 30 Aug 2019 16:27:51 -0700 (PDT)
From: Wes Hardaker <wjhns1@hardakers.net>
To: Shane Kerr <shane@time-travellers.org>
Cc: dnsop@ietf.org
References: <156541541443.1807.17639675157921847600@ietfa.amsl.com> <yblblwwhmq3.fsf@w7.hardakers.net> <a1885a32-d5aa-9e08-6ef4-b9db35d882af@time-travellers.org>
Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2019 16:27:50 -0700
In-Reply-To: <a1885a32-d5aa-9e08-6ef4-b9db35d882af@time-travellers.org> (Shane Kerr's message of "Mon, 26 Aug 2019 22:17:05 +0200")
Message-ID: <ybltv9ymdxl.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
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/jdRkZdq7SV58gksdiQB2aPhWy80>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-extended-error-08.txt
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: Fri, 30 Aug 2019 23:27:53 -0000

Shane Kerr <shane@time-travellers.org> writes:

> While I thought the RCODE linkage was a bit clunky, the idea of having
> some structure to the response codes was actually kind of nice, for
> the same reason that the 1xx, 2xx, 3xx, 4xx, 5xx status codes were
> nice. I think the draft is better without using RCODE, but maybe we
> can pick numbers for EDE that are grouped in a similar way?

So, assuming we *can't* easily group them by rcode.  Well, we can, but
the results may not match given discussions with implementers.

If you want to take a whack at suggesting appropriate ranges I'd love to
see what you come up with.  As with all loaves of bread, do you slice
them cross-wise, length-wise or diagonally?

[I reminded my daughter the other day that when she was young I made
her sandwich in the morning for school and cut it in half using a
lightning bolt like cut because she was a fan of Harry Potter]
-- 
Wes Hardaker
USC/ISI

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email