Shane Kerr <sh...@time-travellers.org> writes: > My own thinking is that extended error is much more important on the > resolver side than on the authoritative side, so that's what I was > asking about.
That's fair; it's a generic mechanism but authoritative servers have less reason to return most of the codes (though I cloud see Prohibited and Blocked being useful for authoratatives). (And actually, I just read the "Lame" description in the draft, and it's actually broken. It should talk about what to do for both. I've now fixed that and will push a new version) > There was some discussion that it might be tricky to get correct > information out of the bowels of a resolver that wasn't designed with > this sort of reporting in mind. Yeah, I suspect there are some code bases that this simply won't work with EDE without a major rearchitecture. If they're currently returning a single error code from the depths of a stack trace, they won't be able to easily return either a double-code or potentially modify their codes to be more descriptive. Then we get to "error text" as well and it gets worse. > Here's what I took away (people can and should correct me where I am wrong): Thanks for the summary! Sounds like it was a good discussion. -- Wes Hardaker USC/ISI _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
