IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dnsext] need new flag bit in EDNS, "do me no favours" (DMNF)

Paul Vixie <vixie@isc.org> Sun, 24 October 2010 22:17 UTC

Return-Path: <owner-namedroppers@ops.ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-dnsext-archive@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-dnsext-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A28553A67A4; Sun, 24 Oct 2010 15:17:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.497
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.497 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.102, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dVkl42RAbJ+Q; Sun, 24 Oct 2010 15:17:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9CE7E3A657C; Sun, 24 Oct 2010 15:17:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.72 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <owner-namedroppers@ops.ietf.org>) id 1PA8p4-000OZ7-Vj for namedroppers-data0@psg.com; Sun, 24 Oct 2010 22:13:50 +0000
Received: from [2001:4f8:3:bb:230:48ff:fe5a:2f38] (helo=nsa.vix.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:CAMELLIA256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.72 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <vixie@vix.com>) id 1PA8p2-000OYt-Nd for namedroppers@ops.ietf.org; Sun, 24 Oct 2010 22:13:48 +0000
Received: from nsa.vix.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nsa.vix.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 118F5A1071 for <namedroppers@ops.ietf.org>; Sun, 24 Oct 2010 22:13:48 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from vixie@nsa.vix.com)
From: Paul Vixie <vixie@isc.org>
To: namedroppers@ops.ietf.org
Subject: Re: [dnsext] need new flag bit in EDNS, "do me no favours" (DMNF)
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 24 Oct 2010 17:07:09 -0400." <alpine.LFD.1.10.1010241704360.6683@newtla.xelerance.com>
References: <59023.1287939121@nsa.vix.com> <alpine.LFD.1.10.1010241704360.6683@newtla.xelerance.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.1; nil; GNU Emacs 23.1.1
Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2010 22:13:48 +0000
Message-ID: <77281.1287958428@nsa.vix.com>
Sender: owner-namedroppers@ops.ietf.org
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <namedroppers.ops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: To unsubscribe send a message to namedroppers-request@ops.ietf.org with
List-Unsubscribe: the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
List-Archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/>

> Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2010 17:07:09 -0400 (EDT)
> From: Paul Wouters <paul@xelerance.com>
> 
> > so this would be opt-out rather than opt-in
> 
> But would we really have a choice in the end?

some "web error redirection" services offer opt-out.  this is a way to
standardize it in the protocol.  the fact that not every such service has
to offer this is an example of market force, not technically relevant.
some services do offer opt-out but there is no standardize in-band way
(today) for signalling this during query preparation.

> What about conflicting "favours"?  What about services being withheld if
> I don't "opt-in" to a certain service (say one that blocks ads based on
> DNS)

that's out of scope.

> I have a feeling it is too late for a DMNF bit.....

for many current users of current services, yes.  the standard is timeless.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email