On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 09:51:25AM -0400, Tim Wicinski <tjw.i...@gmail.com> wrote a message of 90 lines which said:
> We had such great comments the first time we did a Working Group > Last Call for draft-ietf-dnsop-extended-error, that the chairs > decided a second one would be even better. IMHO, the document is good. I like the fact there is no longer a limitation of a given EDE to some RCODEs (it makes things simpler). Some details, all editorial: * it could be a good idea to add more specific references for the EDE. For instance, 3 "Stale Answer" could have a reference to draft-ietf-dnsop-serve-stale. * I think that many people will be confused with 15, 16, 17 and 18. Suggestions: * remove 18, which is redundant with 15 (if the user chooses the resolver, and he should have the right to do so, 15 and 18 are the same). 18 is meaningful only if the user does have a simple way to change this behaviour. * Add to the definition of 15 "The policy was decided by the server administrators" * Add to the definition of 16 "This means that the policy was not decided by the server administrators, and it is probably useless to complain to them". _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
