[DNSOP] Re: DNSOP[EDE] Registering a few more error codes

On Sep 18, 2024, at 10:22 AM, Shumon Huque wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 17, 2024 at 11:32 AM Wes Hardaker > wrote: >> Shumon Huque mailto:shu...@gmail.com>> writes: >> >> > Yes, and more specifically, to quote the RFC, they aren't allowed to >> > modify DNS protocol proce

[DNSOP] Re: DNSOP[EDE] Registering a few more error codes

On Tue, Sep 17, 2024 at 11:32 AM Wes Hardaker wrote: > Shumon Huque writes: > > > Yes, and more specifically, to quote the RFC, they aren't allowed to > > modify DNS protocol processing: > > True, but debugging tools may be able to use the machine readable codes > as trigger points for diving in

[DNSOP] Re: DNSOP[EDE] Registering a few more error codes

> I must be misunderstanding. e.g. if I know I'm talking to a PowerDNS > Recursor, both the presense and absense of EDE tell me useful info > about what is going on and how the answer was obtained. How many people know when a recursor does or does not generate an EDE? And what if there is a proxy

[DNSOP] Re: DNSOP[EDE] Registering a few more error codes

>True, but debugging tools may be able to use the machine readable codes >as trigger points for diving into further analysis or as a hint for what >other fields might be related, etc, to display to the admin/user. This suggests that is implementors of debugging tools that should coordinate with se

[DNSOP] Re: DNSOP[EDE] Registering a few more error codes

On Sep 17, 2024, at 10:37 AM, Petr Špaček wrote: > > On 17. 09. 24 15:57, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: >> On Tue, Sep 17, 2024 at 03:16:43PM +0200, >> Petr Špaček wrote >> a message of 30 lines which said: >>> I think EDE 29 (Synthesized) with text note "RFC 8482" is perfectly >>> appropriate fo

[DNSOP] Re: DNSOP[EDE] Registering a few more error codes

On Tue, Sep 17, 2024 at 03:16:43PM +0200, Petr Špaček wrote: > On 16. 09. 24 18:36, Otto Moerbeek wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 16, 2024 at 06:08:10PM +0200, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > > > > > On Mon, Sep 16, 2024 at 08:23:43AM -0700, > > > Wes Hardaker wrote > > > a message of 38 lines which sai

[DNSOP] Re: DNSOP[EDE] Registering a few more error codes

Shumon Huque writes: > Yes, and more specifically, to quote the RFC, they aren't allowed to > modify DNS protocol processing: True, but debugging tools may be able to use the machine readable codes as trigger points for diving into further analysis or as a hint for what other fields might be rel

[DNSOP] Re: DNSOP[EDE] Registering a few more error codes

On 17. 09. 24 15:57, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: On Tue, Sep 17, 2024 at 03:16:43PM +0200, Petr Špaček wrote a message of 30 lines which said: I think EDE 29 (Synthesized) with text note "RFC 8482" is perfectly appropriate for the made-up HINFO answer to ANY (or RRSIG or ...) query. I ten

[DNSOP] Re: DNSOP[EDE] Registering a few more error codes

On Tue, Sep 17, 2024 at 03:16:43PM +0200, Petr Špaček wrote a message of 30 lines which said: > I think EDE 29 (Synthesized) with text note "RFC 8482" is perfectly > appropriate for the made-up HINFO answer to ANY (or RRSIG or ...) query. I tend to disagree since RFC 8482 is about removing da

[DNSOP] Re: DNSOP[EDE] Registering a few more error codes

On 16. 09. 24 18:36, Otto Moerbeek wrote: On Mon, Sep 16, 2024 at 06:08:10PM +0200, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: On Mon, Sep 16, 2024 at 08:23:43AM -0700, Wes Hardaker wrote a message of 38 lines which said: * One to say that the response was deliberately minimal (RFC 8482) For #1 - a m

[DNSOP] Re: DNSOP[EDE] Registering a few more error codes

On Mon, Sep 16, 2024 at 06:08:10PM +0200, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > On Mon, Sep 16, 2024 at 08:23:43AM -0700, > Wes Hardaker wrote > a message of 38 lines which said: > > > > * One to say that the response was deliberately minimal (RFC 8482) > > > For #1 - a more exact definition would be

[DNSOP] Re: DNSOP[EDE] Registering a few more error codes

On Mon, Sep 16, 2024 at 08:23:43AM -0700, Wes Hardaker wrote a message of 38 lines which said: > > * One to say that the response was deliberately minimal (RFC 8482) > For #1 - a more exact definition would be helpful. Minimal how? > One thing we discovered writing the EDE draft is that it w

[DNSOP] Re: DNSOP[EDE] Registering a few more error codes

On Mon, Sep 16, 2024 at 11:46 AM Philip Homburg wrote: > > IE, just saying "hey, by the way, I left something > > out." doesn't really let a client know what they should send more > > queries about. > > Is EDE meant to be used that way? Is EDE meant to be part of the DNS > protocol > in the sense

[DNSOP] Re: DNSOP[EDE] Registering a few more error codes

> IE, just saying "hey, by the way, I left something > out." doesn't really let a client know what they should send more > queries about. Is EDE meant to be used that way? Is EDE meant to be part of the DNS protocol in the sense that receiver generates more DNS requests in response to receiving

[DNSOP] Re: DNSOP[EDE] Registering a few more error codes

Stephane Bortzmeyer writes: > In the current registry for Extended DNS Error Codes (RFC 8914), there > are codes that may be interesting to add: > > * One to say that the response was deliberately minimal (RFC 8482) > * One to say that the response comes from a local root (RFC 8806) > * One to s