I've gone through everyone's (wonderful) comments and have addressed almost all of them, and published a -10. Please let me know if you think I missed anything. Responses to the comments will be sent out shortly.
(and sorry for the delay on this ; day-job hit me over the head hard in the last three weeks ) Two outstanding topics: 1) A number of people have suggested adding references to other RFCs/documents to many of the error codes. This is probably a good idea. A beer or other drink in Singapore to anyone willing to do the work to give me a list of references to add for each code. 2) One outstanding topic of discussion that I think we need to decide to handle or table till a future document: how do we handle forwarding, chained resolvers, and caching. Puneed brought this up most recently in his comments. In the past we've pseudo-agreed that it will be rather complex to document how to handle forwarding, etc, when some of the error context will change upon a forward, for example. IE, forwarding/caching/whatever rules may end up being code specific and may require a *lot* more thought. So, IMHO, we have choices: A) Label these situations as "undefined behavior" and define it in a future document after we get more experience with deployment. This is typically where I've landed opinion-wise in the past, and still do mostly now. B) Document globally how to handle various cases (and we'll need to enumerate them) C) Document how to handle each one independently (or as an override if needed to a global policy) D) Your option here So really, this first comes down to how important is it we handle this case set before it goes out the door? -- Wes Hardaker USC/ISI _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
