[dnsext] Uploaded: edns-client-subnet-00

Wilmer van der Gaast <wilmer@google.com> Wed, 09 February 2011 13:01 UTC

Return-Path: <wilmer@google.com>
X-Original-To: dnsext@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsext@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A81843A69B9 for <dnsext@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Feb 2011 05:01:16 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -105.977
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 mGwVKeBE32Rf for <dnsext@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Feb 2011 05:01:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp-out.google.com (smtp-out.google.com [216.239.44.51]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 947393A69AB for <dnsext@ietf.org>; Wed, 9 Feb 2011 05:01:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from kpbe13.cbf.corp.google.com (kpbe13.cbf.corp.google.com [172.25.105.77]) by smtp-out.google.com with ESMTP id p19D1OpP013466 for <dnsext@ietf.org>; Wed, 9 Feb 2011 05:01:24 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=beta; t=1297256484; bh=Cv39a2LTD2sJDz83TUpccSqqSn0=; h=MIME-Version:Date:Message-ID:Subject:From:To:Cc:Content-Type; b=oiDtOA6VQeBsTBv5ln4SY34KtcOKbuNM4h3VLhqDtmkLwmzi+AXylyn655BWPtW0T jhwLl7g9eSeitXjqmOrxg==
Received: from ewy8 (ewy8.prod.google.com [10.241.103.8]) by kpbe13.cbf.corp.google.com with ESMTP id p19D1MLD020741 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT) for <dnsext@ietf.org>; Wed, 9 Feb 2011 05:01:23 -0800
Received: by ewy8 with SMTP id 8so56361ewy.31 for <dnsext@ietf.org>; Wed, 09 Feb 2011 05:01:21 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc :content-type; bh=0y2SKf9AEfu0FLZ9kAnNaP7IfqyqNvpooi7h83kagng=; b=jOXeqPY27lJFbtrjd/8IsHwBmZlrWvdU/N8wZcWh2RrwDaUanopSlyNE775172s62J FikGKA1+wnbl4McnCb5A==
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=google.com; s=beta; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; b=bvFyfHfrimg0WGG1lUZGmNMZSavfxzHWW5lRdl+don0WXYWfmcdONBJswt94OLGHrd nZ0ODIjoKmC0XH4FhWjw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.213.32.18 with SMTP id a18mr1698299ebd.60.1297256480896; Wed, 09 Feb 2011 05:01:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.213.106.19 with HTTP; Wed, 9 Feb 2011 05:01:20 -0800 (PST)
Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2011 13:01:20 +0000
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=f2ZATArwdhzkNKTu7AADQHsf0u6tCt4OkGaGS@mail.gmail.com>
From: Wilmer van der Gaast <wilmer@google.com>
To: dnsext@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
X-System-Of-Record: true
Cc: edns-client-subnet@googlegroups.com
Subject: [dnsext] Uploaded: edns-client-subnet-00
X-BeenThere: dnsext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: DNS Extensions working group discussion list <dnsext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext>, <mailto:dnsext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsext>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext>, <mailto:dnsext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2011 13:01:16 -0000

Everyone,

A few days ago we uploaded a new version of the edns-client-subnet
draft. It can be found at:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-vandergaast-edns-client-subnet-00

The version number was reset to -00 because of the rename from
edns-client-ip to edns-client-subnet. Without a rename, it would've
been version -02.

Appendix A describes all changes made to the draft since the last
version. In short:

* Rewrote origination sections to clarify that normally only recursive
resolvers generate edns-client-subnet options.
* Discussion on whitelisting or automatically detecting if an
authority supports edns-client-subnet.
* More precisely specifying (optional) transitive behaviour.
* Minor revisions to improve clarity and correctness w.r.t. other RFCs.

Also, since the release of the last draft we have:

* Added support for handling edns-client-subnet options to both our
authoritative nameservers and Google Public DNS, using option code
0x50fa (not officially allocated and *not* to be used permanently).
* Started a small-scale experiment of using edns-client-subnet in real
life, to measure latency improvements and confirm that the idea is
generally feasible. We're working with several third parties (CDNs but
also resolvers) and are looking forward to hearing from anyone else
interested in participating.

We intend to release our findings from the experiment described above
in the next months. In the meantime, comments on the new draft are
welcome as always.


Kind regards,

Wilmer van der Gaast, Carlo Contavalli
Google

Sean Leach
Verisign

Darryl Rodden
Neustar