On Fri, Mar 20, 2026 at 04:53:02PM +0100, Petr Špaček wrote: > On 20. 03. 26 5:15, Mukund Sivaraman wrote: > > > > On Fri, Mar 20, 2026 at 09:29:46AM +0530, tirumal reddy wrote: > > > The layered approach provides richer and more precise error information. > > > For example, "Blocked" means the server is unable to respond to the > > > request > > > because the domain is on a blocklist due to an internal security policy > > > imposed by the operator of the server resolving or forwarding the query. > > > Adding a sub-error code on top of this tells the client exactly why the > > > domain was blocked, enabling better user-facing messages. > > Flattened INFO-CODEs would convey the same error information. They would > > just take up more code points. User facing messages would be mapped from > > the code to a string. It was not about what is conveyed, but how. > > > > > So far we have not heard any arguments in favour of flat INFO-CODE > > > allocation other than yours that outweigh the design rationale already > > > documented in Section 4 of the draft. > > I too am surprised to be the only dissenting developer here. Is there no > > other DNS developer bothered that a 3rd level of result code is > > introduced, that has to be tracked separately? Is there no other DNS > > operator bothered that this needs JSON parsing of the EXTRA-TEXT to > > filtering DNS messages on the sub-error? > > I agree with you Mukund that it is ugly. I also agree flattened structure > would be better. > > On the other hand, I don't see DNS software as consumer of this information. > If browsers what in this way, so be it. The JSON becomes mess in their > playground, not in DNS playground :shrug:
Good Petr. I really appreciate that you stepped up to show support for
it.
Mukund
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
