On Sun, Oct 15, 2023 at 5:46 PM, Roy Arends <roy.are...@icann.org> wrote:
> Warren, > > Thanks for your feedback. > > I can add to the last line of the second paragraph in the abstract as > follows > > Original: > To mitigate this lack of feedback, this document describes a method for a > validating recursive resolver to automatically signal an error to a > monitoring agent specified by the authoritative server. > > New: > To mitigate this lack of feedback, this document describes a method for a > validating recursive resolver to automatically signal an error to a > monitoring agent specified by the authoritative server. The error is > encoded in the QNAME, thus the very act of sending the query is to report > the error. > > Let me know if this works for you. > Perfectly, and thank you. W > Warmly, > > Roy > > On 13 Oct 2023, at 21:59, Warren Kumari <war...@kumari.net> wrote: > > Hi there, authors (and WG), > > Thank you for this document, I found it clear, useful, and an easy read. > > I did have one comment / clarification which I think would help the > document. > > I don't think that it is especially clear to the first time reader that > the query itself is the error report. Yes, it is stated (in the definition > of "Report query"), and strongly implied in the last two paragraphs of the > example, but I suspect that people will miss this. They will see "query" > and "query report", but will assume that they should do something with the > response to _er.1.broken.test.7._er.a01.agent-domain.example and somehow > send the report there. People generally don't think of the qname itself > signalling something. > > I don't have exact text to suggest to fix this, but perhaps something > like: > "The report query will ultimately arrive at the monitoring agent, and the > monitoring agent extracts and parses the report from the query itself". or > "The act of sending the query is itself the error report" or something? > > I think that this should be a simple, and clear improvement… but it's also > entirely possible that it's just me who finds this confusing. If y'all > think it's clear enough as is, I'm fine to start IETF LC…. > > Please let me know LOUDLY either way, > > W > >
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
