IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] draft-ietf-dnsop-extended-error code options

tjw ietf <tjw.ietf@gmail.com> Wed, 15 November 2017 00:58 UTC

Return-Path: <tjw.ietf@gmail.com>
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 71256129454 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 14 Nov 2017 16:58:36 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.698
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.698 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 tr4GSGEO6i5t for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 14 Nov 2017 16:58:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wm0-x233.google.com (mail-wm0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::233]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E182312944B for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 14 Nov 2017 16:58:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wm0-x233.google.com with SMTP id z3so15122836wme.3 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 14 Nov 2017 16:58:32 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=iPeOEBwKiESabK/FHrIQ6noVpYlnyEkcKSB2Qzb1zE0=; b=iBhhMC/UHRBCLNns8aQPdIvgLhoS+/5dqBr/Rri+pI7DNIw4jPGGifHfMTovxcsltG GWG1tXmaoa5DXihNSxfiDwFH1o1KLmSg0UbRWWrJKyiicXxOMF7HmjuV2VNVUxelVS7m VTELhWYzwwhGqvdkqXAAuyZX9HNlLkQR/O6C6Bnj9EP84pBk40q9SS8f7c5AAMB3u/dd QbZkPK7Atu5cUbWcoxxQv9Ufut6IK8eWJL7GLaco6TXx+61X03YFFcMyAf2nqghoYdbS NDyU2iFBGic5Dij9EsStoWBt1BVz/C87unfjR/voyxcW3IimvFlj1+evhLdgpchpnc2L Xdfw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=iPeOEBwKiESabK/FHrIQ6noVpYlnyEkcKSB2Qzb1zE0=; b=TOEfNHN77uvPUmw4s+0TWWUDb8NK2qVmOrpOFLMimb+ixWsMEkZ4BYs7yt0nj8r6YM HcSzTOz4BvGHtqD/pKmxlseRefnMOd6Qt9XfVGa/9HjG+4KKBfL6SSdoPapKibFP6KCg TWTzhU5g7sRlciOTxGYAj2YvsQzcf3hM95Kd3bikt5f5HvbfeOkJdSoxh22+AgX42KPy oze0s/04oX6sUik//vkVZHs0k/XfJCXonIRFPHZtM6IoS5VV2d57cCAqvB2p8CO8EKwy ycoUmIHJFVDAlPWEDym4N9NEhncccIzglTPxIDuab7QPse1cC8pbBbYun6Od+5V0JwLF 0Mxg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AJaThX4d5omMObQTU1IuPuujtcaGotGfHjtPpi7HF8f2AGGOxCVh2OQd DTURIMwcZ5mnIQIlXpmj4LYI8rhsm6iBN3NR+6Q=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGs4zMZpnCAoL4b3ycq08uZStkb0dgonxcxIkKWJw+EygCHeW/lBe9X4QoWfO8IkC3CQ/Z3T2qlGuE6tcIvr/gm1rbw=
X-Received: by 10.28.30.151 with SMTP id e145mr9459839wme.8.1510707511450; Tue, 14 Nov 2017 16:58:31 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.223.196.169 with HTTP; Tue, 14 Nov 2017 16:58:30 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <yblinecs7bq.fsf@wu.hardakers.net>
References: <yblpo9md8fk.fsf@wu.hardakers.net> <CADyWQ+G-e+zqGkFK7vPQdXBDRvyv-Gxw75N1z+A6L8ULR=+izQ@mail.gmail.com> <26DB1BD1-A877-482A-83B3-7A7F673AAB4A@apnic.net> <3FFE9D39-DD16-4863-9F9B-46D585F90BF1@hopcount.ca> <9EAE2E1F-CE2E-4F9F-92B2-1FE2A6023492@apnic.net> <yblinecs7bq.fsf@wu.hardakers.net>
From: tjw ietf <tjw.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2017 08:58:30 +0800
Message-ID: <CADyWQ+EYDdzKmKgdNQx1XU8o+JysQ=CfEWW9i3dpz_LaHDLb-w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Wes Hardaker <wjhns1@hardakers.net>
Cc: Geoff Huston <gih@apnic.net>, Joe Abley <jabley@hopcount.ca>, dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a114b2efc945f95055dfb0012"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/kBHlOWBOaJysWXJsl1pZ3RACSrU>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] draft-ietf-dnsop-extended-error code options
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Wed, 15 Nov 2017 00:58:36 -0000

Actually Wes, it was absolutely bad for me making the poor assumption on
the choices aligned between the email and the slide.

You are correct the preferred option we hear as the 16 bit value.

On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 8:40 AM, Wes Hardaker <wjhns1@hardakers.net> wrote:

> Geoff Huston <gih@apnic.net> writes:
>
> >> I think the number 4 on the slide was different from the one in the
> mail.
> >
> >
> > I thought so too, but I wasn’t sure if it was me not paying attention
> > in the WG meeting or not!
>
> Yes, you're both right.  And absolutely my bad for writing the
> presentation without looking at the mail I sent and synchronizing the
> numbering.
>
> The preferred option in the room was the 16-bit value that would be used
> in combination with the rcode to indicate the full meaning of the
> extension value.
> --
> Wes Hardaker
> USC/ISI
>

v2.29.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status