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

Petr

Thanks for clarifying.  I was going through so many notes, and needed a
check.

1. Forwarding Semantics

Let me think on this one with the authors and chairs.

2. Stub Resolvers.

OK

3. Standards-Track vs Not

That's more than reasonable.

Tim

On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 1:48 PM Petr Špaček <petr.spacek@nic.cz> wrote:

> On 21. 10. 19 19:18, Tim Wicinski wrote:
> >
> > All
> >
> > The second WGLC period ended, and I needed a bit of time to go over all
> the comments and make sure they were all addressed, and that appears to be
> true.
> >
> > The only thing I see are some comments were raised after the -12
> version.  They've been addressed and can be updated on its way to IETF LC.
> If someone thinks
> > I am incorrect please speak up.
>
> I hate to rain on this parade, but I think the draft in its current form
> has two major problems:
>
> 1. Forwarding semantics is unclear, as was pointed out in
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/PAiQOsYfYQHrL7SeGWZn-jtJrTs
> and elsewhere during WGLC.
>
> Personally I think that omiting forwaring is a major mistake because the
> EDE code is most useful for diagnostics when forwarding is taking place!
>
>
> 2. Second problem is that it is uncelar if there is going to be a
> consumer: Did *anyone* from stub resolvers said a word about this draft? Is
> it useful as it is? Is there an experimental implementation in stub to
> consume this information?
> dnsop has history of tweaks which never get used by stubs, and this draft
> in particular is very expensive to implement in resolver code.
>
>
> Besides technical points above I oppose publishing this as standards-track
> document before it is fully implementated at least once. Previous
> implementation excercise at IETF 104 hackaton uncovered nasty corner cases
> and significantly influenced the draft (removal of rcode field etc.). It
> would be mistake to publish it without re-implementing it again before
> publication, we might find other significant problems.
>
> Thank you.
> Petr Špaček  @  CZ.NIC
>
> >
> > I'll confirm with the authors and finish the shepherd write up
> >
> > Tim
> >
> > On Mon, Sep 30, 2019 at 5:07 PM Wes Hardaker <wjhns1@hardakers.net
> <mailto:wjhns1@hardakers.net>> wrote:
> >
> >     Vittorio Bertola <vittorio.bertola@open-xchange.com <mailto:
> vittorio.bertola@open-xchange.com>> writes:
> >
> >     > > Il 28 settembre 2019 01:41 Wes Hardaker <wjhns1@hardakers.net
> <mailto:wjhns1@hardakers.net>> ha scritto:
> >     > >
> >     > >   + Response: Those three codes were supplied in a previous
> comment
> >     > >     round and they are supposed to indicate policies being
> applied from
> >     > >     different sources.  Can you check the new text of them to
> see if
> >     > >     they are more understandable now?
> >     >
> >     > I think there was an editorial glitch, so now you have two errors
> #17
> >     > and no #18 - 3.19 should become #18 again.
> >
> >     Yep, fixed.  Thanks.
> >
> >     --
> >     Wes Hardaker
> >     USC/ISI
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > DNSOP mailing list
> > DNSOP@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
> >
>
>