Re: [Last-Call] [DNSOP] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-dnsop-extended-error-14

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Eric Orth <ericorth@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> I have similar objections to this as the similar language that was in the draft
> before it was changed to the "MUST continue to follow" language referenced
> above.
> 
> Anything similar to "MUST NOT alter ... processing" is vague over what
> constitutes an alteration to the processing.  I think everybody would agree
> that you should be able to log EDEs, so it must be unambiguous that doing so is
> allowed.  Lots of discretionary room for implementers (especially stub
> implementers) to do various things with an EDE while still following the specs
> on the important handling of the RCODE as the primary error code.
>  
> 

Hi Eric,

Thanks for the (again) well thought out comments.  Do you have a counter
proposal sentence?


>    
>     --
>     Wes Hardaker
>     USC/ISI
>    
>     _______________________________________________
>     DNSOP mailing list
>     DNSOP@xxxxxxxx
>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
> 

-- 
Wes Hardaker
USC/ISI

-- 
last-call mailing list
last-call@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call




[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Mhonarc]     [Fedora Users]

  Powered by Linux