Re: [dnsext] draft-vandergaast-edns-client-ip-00.txt

[Jim Reid <[e-mail]>]

On 1 Feb 2010, at 22:07, John Payne wrote:

> Yes, it adds complexity to the recursive nameservers _that want to  
> send the information_.
>
> Where else is it adding any complexity?

[1] Stub resolvers that don't want their address info disclosed. Or  
those who may want to send that info (how??) but are talking to  
resolving servers who don't. Or the resolving servers tamper with that  
data whenever they query the authoritative server(s). Or choose to  
mangle whatever is returned as the optimised response.

[2] Authoritative servers who can't/won't speak this EDNS0 option. The  
draft does not specify how they should behave.

Another Bad Idea in this draft is the concept of not using these  
extended queries to root and TLD servers. [Ironically, this is one  
place where "optimised" addresses in responses could be useful by  
directing resolvers to the nearest server for a referral.] It's not a  
good idea IMO to constrain a particular protocol query format to  
certain parts of the name space or an arbitrary number of labels in  
the QNAME.