> On 27 Jul 2017, at 09:08, Shane Kerr <sh...@time-travellers.org> wrote: > > I support the draft, and am willing to contribute text and review! > > I have a few points now, in fact: > > 1. Does it make sense to divide the response codes up into those > corresponding to each error type? That is, something like 1xxxx for > SERVFAIL, 2xxxx for FORMERR, and so on?
Loving this idea. 3xxxx for REFUSED. > 2. Do we mind having lots of error codes? For example, we can go really > far and do things likes DNSERR_BADCOMPRESS "name compression used > in RRTYPE that forbids it", or DNSERR_NAMETOOLONG "name longer than > 255 bytes", and so on. We could end up with hundreds of error codes. > As a developer I don't mind this too much, as these provide hints > about stuff you should be considering, but I can see why some people > would prefer to keep it simple. Really like this as well. I think it is really helpful. > > 3. As a concrete proposal, I suggest DNSERR_CENSORED, with the code 451 > for consistency with the HTTP response code. This may be a useful > addition to the RPZ draft. ;) Sure. Roy
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
