[DNSOP] About draft-ietf-dnsop-extended-error

Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr> Sun, 12 November 2017 01:29 UTC

Return-Path: <bortzmeyer@nic.fr>
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 0D74C1271FD for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 11 Nov 2017 17:29:39 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] 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 fZZvxGKkcoEo for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 11 Nov 2017 17:29:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.bortzmeyer.org (aetius.bortzmeyer.org [IPv6:2001:4b98:dc0:41:216:3eff:fece:1902]) (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 0A3A81252BA for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Sat, 11 Nov 2017 17:29:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail.bortzmeyer.org (Postfix, from userid 10) id B37A331D12; Sun, 12 Nov 2017 02:29:33 +0100 (CET)
Received: by godin (Postfix, from userid 1000) id DD82BEC0B85; Sun, 12 Nov 2017 02:28:35 +0100 (CET)
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2017 09:28:35 +0800
From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr>
To: dnsop@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20171112012835.GA16257@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
X-Transport: UUCP rules
X-Operating-System: Ubuntu 16.04 (xenial)
X-Charlie: Je suis Charlie
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/wU5KLyNQ_f5a9uqeez0NL13a07U>
Subject: [DNSOP] About draft-ietf-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: Sun, 12 Nov 2017 01:29:39 -0000

[About -00]

Excellent idea, I strongly support the project.

I intend to use it to register 451 for DNS censorship
<https://labs.ripe.net/Members/stephane_bortzmeyer/dns-censorship-dns-lies-seen-by-atlas-probes>;,
following RFC 7725. (I'm serious.)

> This document discusses extended *errors*, but it has been suggested
> that this could be used to also annotate *non- error* messages.  The
> authors do not think that this is a good idea, but could be
> persuaded otherwise.

Why is it a bad idea? I would appreciate some elaboration.

> It can be included in any error response (SERVFAIL, NXDOMAIN,
> REFUSED, etc)

It can be argued that NODATA (pseudo rcode, I know) is an "error" as
well as NXDOMAIN...

> Usually attached to SERVFAIL messages.

This raises an interesting point. Should extended error codes be
limited to a specific rcode? For instance "Extended error code 100
MUST be used only with SERVFAIL"?