Folks,
We were given feedback during the call for adoption to "use numeric
range codes like those in HTTP". Following that, Warren and I sat down
and came up with some possibilities and would like your feedback about
which of these options you would prefer:
1. Individual codes assigned one at a time, per the existing doc
2. HTTP like: integer ranges where NNYY indicates the NN integer rcode
and YY indicates the sub-code. Note that this needs a 32 bit error
code field.
3. Use a 16 bit error code field, with the 16 bits differ per rcode.
Thus, clients would need to use the combination of rcode and error
code to determine the error.
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?
--
Wes Hardaker
USC/ISI
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
