Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email protected]> writes: > In the current registry for Extended DNS Error Codes (RFC 8914), there > are codes that may be interesting to add: > > * One to say that the response was deliberately minimal (RFC 8482) > * One to say that the response comes from a local root (RFC 8806) > * One to say that the response has been tailored because of ECS (RFC > 7871) [the most useful, IMHO]
Sort of akin to what everyone else has said: I think all of these look interesting and potentially(*) helpful. The real question is: what are the scenarios for each where the receiver would actually make a decision based on the code being included with the answer? For #1 - a more exact definition would be helpful. Minimal how? One thing we discovered writing the EDE draft is that it was better to have more code that clearly indicated exactly how things were being affected. IE, just saying "hey, by the way, I left something out." doesn't really let a client know what they should send more queries about. It might be better to have more specific information "Hey, you asked for ANY but I'm only responding with one type" or "Hey, you asked for NS but I'm not including all glue" or .... For #2: It might be useful for debugging. Having said that, I'm not sure what I would do with the information. I suppose "oh, well I don't trust you to have answered with real recent root data (even though I can validate it), so I'm going to go around you"? Fro #3: Again, what is my next step or recourse? I'm not sure here what I'd do with that new bit of information. Similarly, the parallel missing code is "I'm doing DNS load balancing so if you ask again in 5 minutes you'll get a different answer". -- Wes Hardaker USC/ISI _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
