Re: [DNSOP] draft-ietf-dnsop-extended-error status

Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at> Mon, 30 September 2019 11:54 UTC

Return-Path: <dot@dotat.at>
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 EF65912022E for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Sep 2019 04:54:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.199
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_NONE=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 MwUVrtcum0Io for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Sep 2019 04:54:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ppsw-32.csi.cam.ac.uk (ppsw-32.csi.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.132]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 48CAA120227 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Mon, 30 Sep 2019 04:54:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Cam-AntiVirus: no malware found
X-Cam-ScannerInfo: http://help.uis.cam.ac.uk/email-scanner-virus
Received: from grey.csi.cam.ac.uk ([131.111.57.57]:46416) by ppsw-32.csi.cam.ac.uk (ppsw.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.136]:25) with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) id 1iEuFk-001Xur-2z (Exim 4.92.3) (return-path <dot@dotat.at>); Mon, 30 Sep 2019 12:54:08 +0100
Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2019 12:54:08 +0100
From: Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at>
To: Wes Hardaker <wjhns1@hardakers.net>
cc: dnsop@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <ybly2y9z4v4.fsf@w7.hardakers.net>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1909301247550.11804@grey.csi.cam.ac.uk>
References: <ybly2y9z4v4.fsf@w7.hardakers.net>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (DEB 67 2015-01-07)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/t5b85LnokCKgyiPjMRPcJkP33hk>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] draft-ietf-dnsop-extended-error status
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Mon, 30 Sep 2019 11:54:13 -0000

Wes Hardaker <wjhns1@hardakers.net> wrote:
>
> 2) One outstanding topic of discussion that I think we need to decide to
> handle or table till a future document: how do we handle forwarding,
> chained resolvers, and caching.

Difficult. In general there will be multiple upstream servers, even in
the simplest case of a stub talking to a recursive server talking directly
to authoritative servers. So there can be an arbitrary combination of
upstream errors, and they might not relate directly to the QNAME, (e.g.
problems with a parent zone, problems chasing down nameserver addresses).

Perhaps if the upstream problems are consistent with each other, the
resolver can return a single extended error code to its client; otherwise
fall back to a "multiple errors" catch-all?

Tony.
-- 
f.anthony.n.finch  <dot@dotat.at>  http://dotat.at/
Malin: East backing northeast 5 to 7. Moderate or rough. Showers. Good.