Overall, I think this document, and its definition of the EXTRA-TEXT field as JSON is important. To that end, I am eager to see progress in this area.
However, I think we should not quite yet ship this out of the WG. Two specific points: - I’d like to have a working group discussion with regards to the proposal in draft-nottingham-public-resolver-errors-00. While that doesn’t necessarily require being merged into draft-ietf-dnsop-structured-dns-error, it could be, and I would like to ensure with the WG that if they are separate, that there are no changes needed in draft-ietf-dnsop-structured-dns-error in order to support the details Mark’s draft is proposing. I think this incident/operator ID approach is potentially a very compelling tool to drive adoption of these errors across browser clients. - I am concerned about the IANA registry policy for the JSON names being IETF Review. (My concerns are slightly less for the other registries.) Requiring not only an RFC, but an IETF-stream RFC, seems like too high a bar. I would suggest Expert Review. Best, Tommy > On Oct 26, 2024, at 9:10 PM, Benno Overeinder <be...@nlnetlabs.nl> wrote: > > Dear all, > > The draft-ietf-dnsop-structured-dns-error has seen several revisions and > there has been considerable discussion on the mailing list and in the WG. At > IETF 116, Gianpaolo Scalone (Vodafone) and Ralf Weber (Akamai) presented a > proof of concept of this specification. > > The authors and the WG chairs believe the draft is ready for a Working Group > Last Call. > > > This initiates the Working Group Last Call (WGLC) for > draft-ietf-dnsop-structured-dns-error, "Structured Error Data for Filtered > DNS." > > The draft can be reviewed here: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-structured-dns-error/ > > Intended Status: Proposed Standard > Document Shepherd: Benno > > Please take the time to review this draft and share any relevant comments. > For the WGLC to be effective, we need both positive support and constructive > feedback; a simple lack of objection isn’t enough. > > If you believe this draft is ready for publication as an RFC, please state > your support. Conversely, if you feel the document isn’t ready for > publication, please provide your concerns and reasoning. > > This starts a two-week Working Group Last Call process, concluding on > November 9, 2024. > > Thank you, > > Suzanne > Tim > Benno > > _______________________________________________ > DNSOP mailing list -- dnsop@ietf.org > To unsubscribe send an email to dnsop-le...@ietf.org
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list -- dnsop@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to dnsop-le...@ietf.org
