On Sep 11, 2019, at 9:50 PM, Wes Hardaker <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> Paul Hoffman <[email protected]> writes:
> 
>> On Sep 11, 2019, at 4:02 PM, Wes Hardaker <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Tim Wicinski <[email protected]> writes:
>>> 
>>>> it sounds to me that a discussion on assumptions with EDEs and RCODES
>>>> would be useful in the security considerations section as well. 
>>> 
>>> I'll look at wording along those lines.
>>> 
>>> Note, however, that EDE codes are specifically meant as supplemental
>>> information and shouldn't be "acted" upon.  Hence
>>> 
>>> Paul> A developer writes code that assumes that EDE X must go with RCODE Y
>>> Paul> because the text for EDE X indicates that. The get a response with EDE
>>> Paul> X and RCODE Z. The code rejects that, and does not act on RCODE Z.
>>> 
>>> "does not act on RCODE Z" is already the right approach, since it's
>>> unauthenticated in the first place (which is discussed in the
>>> document).
>> 
>> I do not understand this. Many receivers of RCODEs act on them even
>> though they are unauthenticated. A recursive resolver receiving a
>> message with RCODE of SERVFAIL will look at other authoritative
>> servers, for example.
> 
> You implied said ""RCODE Z" but implied "RCODE Z but also looked at EDE
> code X", and deliberately didn't act on Z because the presence of EDE
> code X.  This document isn't (and shouldn't) change the processing
> behavior of RCODEs; it only augments an additional message with
> additional information which can be reported to the user or log or ...
> It's not supposed to affect decision processing.

But that sentence doesn't appear anywhere in the document.

Proposal: add the following sentence to the end of the abstract: "Extended 
error information does not change the processing of RCODEs."

Proposal: add to the end of the Introduction: Applications MUST NOT change the 
processing of RCODEs in messages based on extended error codes.

--Paul Hoffman
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop

Reply via email to