Dear WG, 

After the October 26, IETF DNSOP interim WG on DNS Error Reporting, the 
document editors have made the following changes to reflect the discussion:

Change 1) Due to qname minimisation, the reporting agent may not know that the 
reported string has been shortened. There were a few options suggested, such as 
adding a label counter. However, the most straightforward option seemed to be 
to start the reporting query with an _er label as well.

Change 2) There was an observation by developers that some authoritative 
servers do not parse (unknown) EDNS0 options correctly, leading to an 
additional roundtrip by the resolver. It was suggested that authoritative 
servers could return the new EDNS0 option “unsolicited”. This is already the 
case for Extended DNS errors. We have adopted this suggestion. It was also 
pointed out that this kind of unsolicited behaviour can be surveyed. We believe 
that one such effort is underway.

Change 3) There as a lot of descriptive text what implementations should and 
shouldn’t do, and what configurations should and shouldn’t do. This was found 
to be overly descriptive and pedantic, and has now been removed.

There was a request to put the markdown version of the document in GitHub. This 
has now been placed here: 
https://github.com/RoyArends/draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-error-reporting 
<https://github.com/RoyArends/draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-error-reporting>

New version: 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-error-reporting-01.txt
 
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-error-reporting-01.txt>
Diffs: 
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-error-reporting-01 
<https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-error-reporting-01>

Warm regards,

Roy Arends

_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop

Reply via email to