It appears draft-ietf-dnsop-structured-dns-error is in WG Document state
again. I was reading it today to consider for implementation when I came
across the sub-error field again. In my previous review of 28 Jun 2023,
I asked why it was necessary for which it appears this text has been
added to the draft:
> An alternate design for conveying the sub-error would be to define
> new EDE codes for these errors. However, such design is
> suboptimal because it requires replicating an error code for each
> EDE code to which the sub-error applies (e.g., "Malware" sub-error
> in Table 3 would consume three EDE codes).
This is ideal, however, there are 49120 unassigned EDE INFO-CODEs
currently which is ample space to consume. There are already 2 levels of
result codes now (RCODE and the EDE INFO-CODE). Adding a 3rd level
sub-code appears to me to complicate implementation as the INFO-CODE and
sub-code would now have to be passed around in implementation as 2
separate fields.
In fact, if EDE INFO-CODEs were allocated instead of the sub-code items
mentioned in section 11.3 of the draft, they can be used to separate
these conditions even in plain RFC 8914 implementations. I am not
convinced that this additional sub-code and registry are necessary.
Please just allocate INFO-CODEs and keep it simple.
Mukund
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
