It appeared from me from the meeting in Dallas and the sparse list
discussion is while the error codes would seem "interesting/useful",
there is no good use case to show usefulness, which is my Mr. Andrews
did not implement them.
I was approaching this (and as we approach the idea of WGLC) that we
drop the error codes for the time being since there is no working
implementation; and there is no strong desire for them.
I would rather lean in this direction, remove the error codes, and send
the draft into WGLC as "Experimental". Does the working group have any
strong opinions on this position?
tim
On 5/6/15 2:19 PM, 神明達哉 wrote:
At Fri, 1 May 2015 23:21:30 +0000,
Evan Hunt <e...@isc.org> wrote:
The chief difference between the two is the presence of an error code field
in Eastlake cookies; Andrews found it redundant/unnecessary (as discussed
in https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsop/current/msg13984.html).
The hope was that including both mechanisms in the draft would lead to
a working group discussion about whether the error code is, in fact,
necessary or desirable; unfortunately, not much discussion has happened
yet.
Can someone explain why we'd need the separate error codes based on
the position of supporting them (i.e, not to persuade others on
dropping them)? msg13984.html was basically written to argue against
them, so it could potentially and unintentionally be biased. I'll try
to find any such explanation myself, but if someone already knows it
better can do that, it would also help.
--
JINMEI, Tatuya
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
