Subject: [DNSOP] draft-ietf-dnsop-extended-error code options

From: Wes Hardaker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2017 15:39:11 -0700

Folks,

We were given feedback during the call for adoption to "use numeric
range codes like those in HTTP".  Following that, Warren and I sat down
and came up with some possibilities and would like your feedback about
which of these options you would prefer:

  1. Individual codes assigned one at a time, per the existing doc

  2. HTTP like: integer ranges where NNYY indicates the NN integer rcode
     and YY indicates the sub-code.  Note that this needs a 32 bit error
     code field.

  3. Use a 16 bit error code field, with the 16 bits differ per rcode.
     Thus, clients would need to use the combination of rcode and error
     code to determine the error.

  4. 32 bit code field, repeating rcode from elsewhere in the packet
     Like #2, but copies the rcode directly into the error code header
     within the extended-error component of the packet.  Redundant but
     clear that the entire 32 bits are needed.

Thoughts?

-- 
Wes Hardaker
USC/ISI