I like the Extended Error Code using EDNS idea. This was effectively
what was done with TSIG and TKEY that have an expanded Error field
inside the RR. However:
>> I don't see any reason for the complex two-dimensional table to
new error codes. Given that 16 bits is available for "INFO-CODE"
(whic
On 24. 10. 18 8:41, Tim Wicinski wrote:
> We've been talking with the authors of Extended Error and now that
> they've gotten around to updating the document, and the chairs
> feel it is ready for Working Group Last Call.
>
> We're going to kick this WGLC off this week and run it through IETF103.
Ray Bellis wrote:
FWIW, I really wish in retrospect that EDNS(0) had defined the extra
rcode bits as being for a _sub-type_ of the primary RCODE, i.e. SERVFAIL
is always "2" in those four bits in the main header, with the extended
field in the EDNS response allowing for more detail (c.f.
On 30/10/2018 16:57, Wes Hardaker wrote:
> Well, the plan is to not allow it per the original EDNS0 spec. We
> should have said that in the section and said "going once" or
> something. IE, the plan is to disallow sending it back unless the
> source indicates support.
>
> [In theory, it s
On 30 Oct 2018, at 12:57, Wes Hardaker wrote:
>> With IANA registry requests, I may be wrong here, but I thought we had
>> some (boilerplate?) language about how IANA is asked to operate the
>> registry: what criteria judge acceptance. Is it like the OID and
>> basically open (hair oil) slather,
George Michaelson writes:
> How can it go WGLC with section 6 an open question?
Well, the plan is to not allow it per the original EDNS0 spec. We
should have said that in the section and said "going once" or
something. IE, the plan is to disallow sending it back unless the
source indicates
Dear DNS colleagues,
I definitely agree with George that last call seems a bit premature. As
he points out, section 6 is a large open question. We need to either
change EDNS behavior to allow an unsolicited EDNS option in a response
or change this draft to include an appropriate EDNS option wh
How can it go WGLC with section 6 an open question?
in every other respect I like the document. Bad Hair and all.
I would like to understand if we could work out a way to do traceroute
in the codes, with some defined code to ask the DNS resolver to
perform a TTL drop on a counter and mark itself
Hi
We've been talking with the authors of Extended Error and now that
they've gotten around to updating the document, and the chairs
feel it is ready for Working Group Last Call.
We're going to kick this WGLC off this week and run it through IETF103.
This will give folks time during the meeting t
