IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] draft-ietf-dnsop-extended-error code options

Geoff Huston <gih@apnic.net> Mon, 13 November 2017 11:41 UTC

Return-Path: <gih@apnic.net>
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 83A9E127B31 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 Nov 2017 03:41:14 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=apnic.onmicrosoft.com
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 SGcy02rnoHmj for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 Nov 2017 03:41:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from JPN01-OS2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-os2jpn01on0086.outbound.protection.outlook.com [104.47.92.86]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8396F124BFA for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Mon, 13 Nov 2017 03:41:11 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=apnic.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector1-apnic-net; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version; bh=lH0gB994/OMMZvbkjGXMTDLBZRQpHSbkXTvQrxQAwac=; b=oAVwj9xifWiQSPSOQJorELOQr53gqIdGIhiul1/JRVFNxGS9b782aFC9hppfVZdi3eSlH9YEMMa3DrkAnSoHf/O2e/lbsZw+0DWMZ310LNklurBOKo896mrKBki22oBSGPATZ277LdtjLTYWE6XvwWnisRSJkX2UAEJ0G9O7X9Y=
Authentication-Results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=gih@apnic.net;
Received: from [IPv6:2001:67c:1232:144:dde6:9fe8:8ece:14a2] (2001:67c:1232:144:dde6:9fe8:8ece:14a2) by TY1PR04MB0703.apcprd04.prod.outlook.com (10.163.246.25) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384_P256) id 15.20.218.12; Mon, 13 Nov 2017 11:41:08 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.3 \(3273\))
From: Geoff Huston <gih@apnic.net>
In-Reply-To: <CADyWQ+G-e+zqGkFK7vPQdXBDRvyv-Gxw75N1z+A6L8ULR=+izQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2017 22:01:30 +1100
Cc: Wes Hardaker <wjhns1@hardakers.net>, dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <26DB1BD1-A877-482A-83B3-7A7F673AAB4A@apnic.net>
References: <yblpo9md8fk.fsf@wu.hardakers.net> <CADyWQ+G-e+zqGkFK7vPQdXBDRvyv-Gxw75N1z+A6L8ULR=+izQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: tjw ietf <tjw.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3273)
X-Originating-IP: [2001:67c:1232:144:dde6:9fe8:8ece:14a2]
X-ClientProxiedBy: HK2PR04CA0081.apcprd04.prod.outlook.com (10.170.154.153) To TY1PR04MB0703.apcprd04.prod.outlook.com (10.163.246.25)
X-MS-PublicTrafficType: Email
X-MS-Office365-Filtering-Correlation-Id: ec0f001a-e68c-4316-6a69-08d52a8b6e7e
X-Microsoft-Antispam: UriScan:; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(22001)(4534020)(4602075)(4627115)(201703031133081)(201702281549075)(2017052603258); SRVR:TY1PR04MB0703;
X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: 1; TY1PR04MB0703; 3:W2RfmbpxqfL2S2Vb0a/BQZOcyrIKsSCvRMkYg4OPs0uK93IEGvPXD+ZNLAUn6kRa7bJwpXYzoZqPtPx4bZA3MO4jKFBgnSheiCgR99wFgNDc7T5zr2KvVN96ynZMRL1RKC68QQc6QMCjV2P54Z74Vg2pg70GzMm/3od7JeZtDCm8Fq5Rf2tWI39XAd2y5xiFDjcjWmjOTU/UIwnafGtkpFXKZUevqebNpfXxFX+zrkr9u8QAfGClZn/KX+BN/cQp; 25:inruJu6jXyYZ5F4i/4lKql7xQ9z+LJgxdUoBKrTANp9gcHd3+W5QoaJ/dOPXlyFzUBl70YGFzXVhN3gvxNZVrP3QQLCX/L77LOkwyo/VgJKMV8HUJNZjdRhwBjS+BtEHpwiXmkkIhlxuD5NN6lv8z8OcYkhhsSPG47AfoFTNQ8mx0WSjWJVTcLEN2r4AiveXPLP64zkafX91FaQVBqn0BkhxZ5iZWYN45LzKYK1CTqy6z4CLGvIJmM9NnANQL9sNMmmGvBaYzswJiLp/wv3V/PQU9kdyIJld5jeGSUeaX3FEIN7z8qnQaB3pCil5PXOhg+uS5r4qwUBRBalq0xboQQ==; 31:5Sv5/t+S5FqYSJnARjYLEJBLhZHY4zIQ7Flx/luAaq/nyIvV/punkUmK16h+uuVtaQOqQbi2YoQ58O2KP+uVuCfboI86aBmKYGKNlwG+rdCLEI6Tij3vPapChgNyvTIOcWkQiQEKpQtRokoNpiDFBEg+4lMuH86cI+Ti6VF1lHqNrkRsmK4AlVAm+obg0q+MiEVQYkspRBpY6wfWGHbOVMDe1A5W8XCM8WkNAH6N3G0=
X-MS-TrafficTypeDiagnostic: TY1PR04MB0703:
X-Microsoft-Antispam-PRVS: <TY1PR04MB0703C5E80F2C452BC02D1F2FB82B0@TY1PR04MB0703.apcprd04.prod.outlook.com>
X-Exchange-Antispam-Report-Test: UriScan:;
X-Exchange-Antispam-Report-CFA-Test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(100000700101)(100105000095)(100000701101)(100105300095)(100000702101)(100105100095)(6040450)(2401047)(5005006)(8121501046)(3002001)(10201501046)(3231022)(100000703101)(100105400095)(93006095)(93001095)(6041248)(20161123562025)(20161123558100)(20161123564025)(201703131423075)(201702281528075)(201703061421075)(201703061406153)(20161123555025)(20161123560025)(6072148)(201708071742011)(100000704101)(100105200095)(100000705101)(100105500095); SRVR:TY1PR04MB0703; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(100000800101)(100110000095)(100000801101)(100110300095)(100000802101)(100110100095)(100000803101)(100110400095)(100000804101)(100110200095)(100000805101)(100110500095); SRVR:TY1PR04MB0703;
X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: 1; TY1PR04MB0703; 4:sPqRXpoLZO9tGslJgYaHYH0x8HKH1vc/w6kz8wmKr60NB4usLEduSgcGKrih7z372RV4bQc4NuVuoYOJqRX4UJ3oB+ZonvUgp1hR92T8Axj8sbxQy8/CgMQEseZpJYx4zkRSp2CVHqUuXzLZuaMBoVVY293GSBDRy8Ufa2fx22sxpBrZZlOj9W1ScgYZ111cHXNeerTxZ4ntBbfDB3lTNtB6gRxMX2ANhWD+ZFheunxoeAy/U5NXnvKglgHnXepsUBovrmDwqSrC+LOZAJRYEQ==
X-Forefront-PRVS: 0490BBA1F0
X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009020)(6009001)(376002)(39830400002)(346002)(199003)(189002)(24454002)(305945005)(478600001)(6486002)(50986999)(36756003)(53936002)(39060400002)(4326008)(1706002)(6116002)(86362001)(82746002)(7736002)(81156014)(8676002)(76176999)(81166006)(101416001)(8746002)(8936002)(68736007)(6246003)(2906002)(53546010)(50226002)(57306001)(47776003)(97736004)(189998001)(105586002)(23676003)(106356001)(54906003)(230783001)(83716003)(316002)(33656002)(2950100002)(6916009)(6666003)(5660300001)(50466002)(25786009)(229853002)(42262002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:TY1PR04MB0703; H:[IPv6:2001:67c:1232:144:dde6:9fe8:8ece:14a2]; FPR:; SPF:None; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:1; MX:1; LANG:en;
Received-SPF: None (protection.outlook.com: apnic.net does not designate permitted sender hosts)
X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: 1;TY1PR04MB0703;23: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
X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: 1; TY1PR04MB0703; 6:VHsmLZ8IghQnE3sOJcaoLJeFAGRgdw564pLMDXwhz8oDhpckTbj6S474iuspVGPVeFGzAP0uzAHgaYJqlMgya/9Ugvgf+LAcKhyjwtRlddPvvm8joXGboiUUmwVPbfwCcl96G7aBFD6Qj1XQHlR2mWmoHAgyqZjaQfPRjBBV27XZFS2jMXux9V7FhIZb+6b58dobfwAFx9lgBpKpXuV9l9urVV9xbTGiVlnjf9KB8Z5ZFQjKT6ydd3JOG9KHDyf0F8p1sJBNloMr4O/fDTq3t7D114r8Qa7G1hx04p/hHYsArhgi2v0WQiDc7b2fV5t/BWIFAFnLkcZXlZPDBiqC+bCgqEEaCBVC9h3BEBf7oPU=; 5:FIUNpP2kvI2jpvEBqX2kUUH3QTuZQENSSqyMA73i0EteFUgKUnyQAjGVrFPhFX5tRDowBDCGpCduC41rgZDguCFmMte3qRKFfz7UgHSv0U+k7hqrdNhYYPfD5fFXDwrnZgaDx4O/5aKZgm7DsC8vVA7bTfsoWHuf2bMpI5Xyj7w=; 24:B5603y/DX0+9mW/aVww434lQoa4wbliGrdNZpAurB6jgMjxheT/V3v7hiMJAjzmDIZJ63RQ02k0qy+02IVkNRqawpGcWIRji0SYhmzTwaew=; 7:TOn8i1sCSOxor2/BUCsDJuInIQ+pQbmAt3fcFXvTvdiVa1d48py7nL+TjO+4Mq+U27QGgMcPeoje/wzYOmBy4sTzRGsIq9UnSm0LC1VPqt5jqGLcTaMgv0Mz9RAoahdoVMBDpB2pZZOcV61523M2LJE9ZOza54F8LR6ElNL1PuL56mroGhC85n2OsMVzmhmsi+h5km1gG9d+4DT7XZofIDjBtSd4d0M1SZJLEWgqwgLR/f7lIvFFp7zqod0Jq6fY
SpamDiagnosticOutput: 1:99
SpamDiagnosticMetadata: NSPM
X-OriginatorOrg: apnic.net
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalArrivalTime: 13 Nov 2017 11:41:08.0548 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: ec0f001a-e68c-4316-6a69-08d52a8b6e7e
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-FromEntityHeader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Id: 127d8d0d-7ccf-473d-ab09-6e44ad752ded
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: TY1PR04MB0703
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/t6CFY593HxG46gZIW4UACVjjJ1k>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] draft-ietf-dnsop-extended-error code options
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: Mon, 13 Nov 2017 11:41:14 -0000

> On 13 Nov 2017, at 9:43 pm, tjw ietf <tjw.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> To follow up from the meeting this morning,  it sounded from the room that in the case of these 
> four options, #4 was the one which makes the most sense.   
> 
> 
…..

> 
>   4. 32 bit code field, repeating rcode from elsewhere in the packet
>      Like #2, but copies the rcode directly into the error code header
>      within the extended-error component of the packet.  Redundant but
>      clear that the entire 32 bits are needed.
> 
> Thoughts?


errr - what would it mean if the rcode in the error code header differed
from the rcode value in the extended-error component?

The issue with duplicated information in a packet is that you then have
add even further consideration to cope with the cases where the expected
thing did not happen.

Not exactly blown away by #4 myself.

Geoff

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email