On Sep 13, 2019, at 4:16 AM, Ray Bellis <r...@bellis.me.uk> wrote: > On 12/09/2019 19:10, Viktor Dukhovni wrote: > >> That's the crux of the matter and, in short, *no*, that's not (or should >> not be) the motivation. >> SERVFAIL means, and will continue to mean, I can't help you, better luck >> next >> time (or elsewhere). >> The new EDEs are *diagnostic* detail to aid in troubleshoots, but do not >> override RCODEs. They are not a more fine-grained RCODE one might "act on". >> If we want more fine-grained *actionable* codes, there's plenty of room for >> more values in the 12-bit EDNS RCODE. >> [ I chatted off-list with Wes, the above appears to match his take, with a >> bit >> luck also rough WG consensus... ] > > The very first two sentences of the draft are (to my reading) at odds with > that: > > "There are many reasons that a DNS query may fail, some of them > transient, some permanent; some can be resolved by querying another > server, some are likely best handled by stopping resolution. > Unfortunately, the error signals that a DNS server can return are > very limited, and are not very expressive."
Fully agree. That's why I'm pressing for clarification by addition of determinative text, not just removal of confusing text. --Paul Hoffman _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
