IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Call for Adoption: draft-wkumari-dnsop-extended-error

Edward Lewis <edward.lewis@icann.org> Wed, 26 July 2017 15:13 UTC

Return-Path: <edward.lewis@icann.org>
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 D5C141294A2 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 26 Jul 2017 08:13:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.203
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.203 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 zw2kRl17UGzD for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 26 Jul 2017 08:13:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out.west.pexch112.icann.org (pfe112-ca-2.pexch112.icann.org [64.78.40.10]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2E97812EB5D for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Wed, 26 Jul 2017 08:13:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from PMBX112-W1-CA-1.pexch112.icann.org (64.78.40.21) by PMBX112-W1-CA-1.pexch112.icann.org (64.78.40.21) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1178.4; Wed, 26 Jul 2017 08:12:59 -0700
Received: from PMBX112-W1-CA-1.pexch112.icann.org ([64.78.40.21]) by PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG ([64.78.40.21]) with mapi id 15.00.1178.000; Wed, 26 Jul 2017 08:12:59 -0700
From: Edward Lewis <edward.lewis@icann.org>
To: dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>
CC: tjw ietf <tjw.ietf@gmail.com>
Thread-Topic: [Ext] [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-wkumari-dnsop-extended-error
Thread-Index: AQHTBV+qNnxcvNHjIkSYl1hJMYs/dqJmauCA
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 15:12:59 +0000
Message-ID: <F6217161-C70E-46C2-8D8B-628BBE25666B@icann.org>
References: <CADyWQ+Ffu8JOn6co184PC-Uvv4G1qYU3d0ZchupRJEDDmfYKaw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CADyWQ+Ffu8JOn6co184PC-Uvv4G1qYU3d0ZchupRJEDDmfYKaw@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/f.24.1.170721
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [192.0.47.234]
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg="sha1"; boundary="B_3583912379_1135136622"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/rTXvU8vR_OJrKrbynj6P2eGabJo>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Call for Adoption: draft-wkumari-dnsop-extended-error
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, 26 Jul 2017 15:13:04 -0000


On 7/25/17, 12:04, "DNSOP on behalf of tjw ietf" <dnsop-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of tjw.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:

>This draft was the only one which seemed to have broad support in some form during the meeting last week.   

>This starts a Call for Adoption for draft-wkumari-dnsop-extended-error

>The draft is available here:
>https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wkumari-dnsop-extended-error-02[tools.ietf.org]

>Please review this draft to see if you think it is suitable for adoption by DNSOP, and comments to the list, clearly stating your view.

>Please also indicate if you are willing to contribute text, review, etc.

It's funny that the older you get and the more you see the same old question the less clear what the right answer is.

I thought the intent of EDNS was to extend things like the response codes.  "Extension Mechanisms for DNS (EDNS(0))" [https://www.rfc-editor.org/std/std75.txt] includes "EDNS provides a mechanism to ... provid[e] extra data space for ... return codes (RCODEs)."  So entertaining a WG work item/draft on EDNS'ing RCODEs is a no-brainer, I mean, bring it on.

But the draft itself isn't exactly the way I'd go about solving the problem.  Does that mean it shouldn't be adopted?  I suppose not, I suppose the answer is to adopt it and change it mercilessly.

In a separate message, I'll send some comments about the draft.  I don't know if I'll be tuned in enough to follow up (I don't often take time to read the list like I used to do), so I won't promise anything beyond that.  It's a matter of time and priorities.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email