Re: [DNSOP] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-dnsop-extended-error

Wes Hardaker <> Tue, 30 October 2018 16:57 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D8A712D4EA for <>; Tue, 30 Oct 2018 09:57:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3VEO5D93Zwto for <>; Tue, 30 Oct 2018 09:57:03 -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 F344E12D4F2 for <>; Tue, 30 Oct 2018 09:57:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (unknown []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3FCD920D6D; Tue, 30 Oct 2018 09:57:02 -0700 (PDT)
From: Wes Hardaker <>
To: George Michaelson <>
Cc: Tim WIcinski <>, dnsop WG <>
References: <> <>
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2018 09:57:02 -0700
In-Reply-To: <> (George Michaelson's message of "Thu, 25 Oct 2018 08:30:20 +1000")
Message-ID: <>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.3 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-dnsop-extended-error
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: Tue, 30 Oct 2018 16:57:05 -0000

George Michaelson <> writes:

> How can it go WGLC with section 6 an open question?

Well, the plan is to not allow it per the original EDNS0 spec.  We
should have said that in the section and said "going once...." or
something.  IE, the plan is to disallow sending it back unless the
source indicates support.

[In theory, it should be possible to always include it because of the
"ignore additional you don't understand" rule]

> I would like to understand if we could work out a way to do traceroute
> in the codes, with some defined code to ask the DNS resolver to
> perform a TTL drop on a counter and mark itself into the chain, which
> would help uncover resolver chains.

That's an interesting idea!  (not for this draft though right?  Seems
overreaching for this one)

> With IANA registry requests, I may be wrong here, but I thought we had
> some (boilerplate?) language about how IANA is asked to operate the
> registry: what criteria judge acceptance. Is it like the OID and
> basically open (hair oil) slather, or is it only at WG RFC documented
> request?

If there is a better template, we'd certainly like to hear it.
Wes Hardaker