From: Wes Hardaker <wjhns1@hardakers.net>
To: Eric Orth <ericorth@google.com>
Cc: Wes Hardaker <wjhns1@hardakers.net>,
 Catherine Meadows <catherine.meadows@nrl.navy.mil>, last-call@ietf.org,
 dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-dnsop-extended-error.all@ietf.org,
 secdir@ietf.org
References: <158566679527.28397.11447221654478370153@ietfa.amsl.com>
 <yblv9m1u27a.fsf@w7.hardakers.net>
 <CAMOjQcH9pmiJtzGOH9yArHxq55UURyQU_CNamR+KHNiovH6oww@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2020 14:56:22 -0700
Message-ID: <yblr1wln5dl.fsf@w7.hardakers.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/sHJjHmu2QeH5iVVy7AbeLLzrPcI>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Secdir last call review of
 draft-ietf-dnsop-extended-error-14
Precedence: list

Eric Orth <ericorth@google.com> writes:

> I have similar objections to this as the similar language that was in the=
 draft
> before it was changed to the "MUST continue to follow" language referenced
> above.
>=20
> Anything similar to "MUST NOT alter ... processing" is vague over what
> constitutes an alteration to the processing.=C2=A0 I think everybody woul=
d agree
> that you should be able to log EDEs, so it must be unambiguous that doing=
 so is
> allowed.=C2=A0 Lots of discretionary room for implementers (especially st=
ub
> implementers) to do various things with an EDE while still following the =
specs
> on the important handling of the RCODE as the primary error code.
> =C2=A0
>=20

Hi Eric,

Thanks for the (again) well thought out comments.  Do you have a counter
proposal sentence that could be added to the security seciton?

--=20
Wes Hardaker
USC/ISI