> On 14 Nov 2017, at 8:19 am, Joe Abley <jab...@hopcount.ca> wrote:
> 
> Hi Geoff,
> 
> I think the number 4 on the slide was different from the one in the mail.


I thought so too, but I wasn’t sure if it was me not paying attention in the WG 
meeting or not!

> 
> The option on the slide that I mentioned I liked the most was the one that 
> didn't copy the RCODE value from the header, but in effect provided a 
> 16/32/whatever-bit sub-code for whatever the RCODE happened to be.


and that makes sense to me, considering my perspective of the risk associated 
with duplication of protocol field values

> 
> So, for each permissible value of the RCODE field, this new field would 
> provide additional information that was relevant to that value.
> 
> Compared to the other options presented, this avoids having to specify 
> behaviour for all the unhelpful corner cases of RCODE in message header 
> doesn't match the copy in the new field, new field value (e.g. "validation 
> failed" or something) doesn't make sense for this particular RCODE (e.g. 
> "NOERROR"), etc.
> 

thanks Joe,

   Geoff

_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop

Reply via email to