Subject: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-extended-error-06.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 08 Jul 2019 07:52:05 -0700

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Domain Name System Operations WG of the IETF.

        Title           : Extended DNS Errors
        Authors         : Warren Kumari
                          Evan Hunt
                          Roy Arends
                          Wes Hardaker
                          David C Lawrence
	Filename        : draft-ietf-dnsop-extended-error-06.txt
	Pages           : 15
	Date            : 2019-07-08

Abstract:
   This document defines an extensible method to return additional
   information about the cause of DNS errors.  Though created primarily
   to extend SERVFAIL to provide additional information about the cause
   of DNS and DNSSEC failures, the Extended DNS Errors option defined in
   this document allows all response types to contain extended error
   information.

The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-extended-error/

There are also htmlized versions available at:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dnsop-extended-error-06
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-dnsop-extended-error-06

A diff from the previous version is available at:
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-dnsop-extended-error-06

Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

---

From: Donald Eastlake <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2019 23:45:12 -0400

Hi,

Two comments:

   1. Maybe I'm confused but it seems to me that the RESPONSE-CODE field of
   12 bits plus the INFO-CODE field of 16 bits is 28 bits. So I don't
   understand the 2nd paragraph of Section 3.3 that talks about their
   concatenation fitting within 24 bits.
   2. On the code point space for INFO-CODE values, the maximum possible in
   16 bits is 65535, not 65536. I also don't understand the relatively small
   number space set aside for "first-come first-served". That policy only make
   sense to me when then is a large range of values available. If there is
   going to be a first-come first-served interval, I'd suggest that below. But
   I'd be just as happy to get rid of it and only have specification required
   and experimental/private. Generally speaking, error codes are things you
   want to understand so a minimum of specification required makes sense

   o  0 - 32767: Specification required.

   o  32768 - 65279: First come, first served.

   o  65280 - 65535: Experimental / Private use

Thanks,
Donald
===============================
 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
 1424 Pro Shop Court, Davenport, FL 33896 USA
 [email-masked]

On Mon, Jul 8, 2019 at 10:53 AM <[email-masked]> wrote:

> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
>