Eric Orth <ericorth=40google....@dmarc.ietf.org> writes: > I object to the addition of "Receivers MUST NOT change the processing > of RCODEs in messages based on extended error codes."
Actually, I agree with you. That text was from suggestion and I put it in unaltered. I thought about changing it to a SHOULD NOT. But, I like some of your suggestions: > *Something like "applications MUST continue to follow requirements from > applicable specs on how to process rcodes no matter what EDE is also > received" also seems reasonable. Clarifies that those cases where > requirements do exist on how an application acts on errors still apply but > doesn't pretend that the EDE spec now tells the application what to do in > all cases. I think your point is valid and follows the intent: EDE is *not* supposed to supersede other specifications that specify how to process a DNS response. > *Something like "applications SHOULD interpret EDE as supplemental to rcode > rather than as a replacement" also seems reasonable. Clarifies the > communicated meaning of the code without over prescribing how the > application acts on that meaning. Again, makes sense. I think it's covered by your other sentence though? (which I've just replaced the previous sentence with) -- Wes Hardaker USC/ISI _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
