Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-dnsop-extended-error-15: No Objection
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-extended-error/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thank you for addressing my trivial DISCUSS. I have kept the rest of my COMMENTs for archiving purpose. --- for archiving --- Please find below some non-blocking COMMENTs. An answer will be appreciated. I hope that this helps to improve the document, Finally, I loved reading the acknowledgements section ;-) Regards, -éric == COMMENTS == -- Section 2 -- For my own curiosity, why is there no added semantic in the INFO-CODE ? Such as a bit or a range for transient errors vs. permanent errors. It is also a little unclear whether the EDE can happen multiple times (or is it implicit for EDNS0 option?) -- Section 4.5 -- The "forged answer" is not qualified in the name but well in the definition examples. Suggest to rename it in "forged answer by policy" and also create another code for "forged answer for technical reason" (e.g., DNS64). We could also wonder whether this code is an "error" code or a "warning" code. If the latter, then the "EDE" acronym does not really apply anymore (but this is cosmetic). _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
