Shane Kerr <[email protected]> writes: > While I thought the RCODE linkage was a bit clunky, the idea of having > some structure to the response codes was actually kind of nice, for > the same reason that the 1xx, 2xx, 3xx, 4xx, 5xx status codes were > nice. I think the draft is better without using RCODE, but maybe we > can pick numbers for EDE that are grouped in a similar way?
So, assuming we *can't* easily group them by rcode. Well, we can, but the results may not match given discussions with implementers. If you want to take a whack at suggesting appropriate ranges I'd love to see what you come up with. As with all loaves of bread, do you slice them cross-wise, length-wise or diagonally? [I reminded my daughter the other day that when she was young I made her sandwich in the morning for school and cut it in half using a lightning bolt like cut because she was a fan of Harry Potter] -- Wes Hardaker USC/ISI _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
