To be clear: the goals of this draft cannot be met using only a registry of error codes. The goal is to allow a resolver to inform the user about the particular legal action (e.g. a particular lawsuit, warrant, cease-and-desist letter, sanctions obligation, etc.) that caused the resolver to refuse a particular query.
We can discuss extending the lexicon of error codes, but that does not need to be coupled to this draft. (In general, I am skeptical of extending the lexicon, because I don't want to end up in the position of needing an IANA registered error code for "blocked due to blasphemy", etc.) --Ben Schwartz ________________________________ From: Michael Richardson <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, February 23, 2026 6:16 AM To: Mark Nottingham <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected] WG <[email protected]> Subject: [DNSOP] Re: New Version Notification for draft-nottingham-dnsop-censorship-transparency-00.txt Mark Nottingham <[email protected]> wrote: > So, the use case we were interested in was when legally-mandated > filtering was happening; apologies if I haven't used the WG's > terminology correctly. My example was certainly silly, but I'm assuming these western separatists passed a law. But, IANA has caught up. > Other forms of filtering are less interesting (at least to me), and I'd > be concerned that supporting them could be seen as encouraging > opinionated (rather than legally-driven) filtering by intermediaries. Malware site filtering could very well be legally mandated, so I'm not sure I understand what distinction you are trying to make. -- Michael Richardson <[email protected]> . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting ) Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
