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

"Roosenraad, Chris" <chris.roosenraad@twcable.com> Tue, 26 October 2010 12:49 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 A013D3A683E; Tue, 26 Oct 2010 05:49:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.463
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.463 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_MODEMCABLE=0.768, HOST_EQ_MODEMCABLE=1.368]
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 2hqj8NZOGwza; Tue, 26 Oct 2010 05:49:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B142C3A67B2; Tue, 26 Oct 2010 05:49:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.72 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <owner-namedroppers@ops.ietf.org>) id 1PAiuY-000G89-RT for namedroppers-data0@psg.com; Tue, 26 Oct 2010 12:45:54 +0000
Received: from cdpipgw01.twcable.com ([165.237.59.22]) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.72 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <chris.roosenraad@twcable.com>) id 1PAiuV-000G7r-QM for namedroppers@ops.ietf.org; Tue, 26 Oct 2010 12:45:52 +0000
X-SENDER-IP: 10.136.163.15
X-SENDER-REPUTATION: None
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.58,241,1286164800"; d="scan'208";a="145627035"
Received: from unknown (HELO PRVPEXHUB06.corp.twcable.com) ([10.136.163.15]) by cdpipgw01.twcable.com with ESMTP/TLS/RC4-MD5; 26 Oct 2010 08:45:38 -0400
Received: from PRVPEXVS09.corp.twcable.com ([10.136.163.38]) by PRVPEXHUB06.corp.twcable.com ([10.136.163.15]) with mapi; Tue, 26 Oct 2010 08:45:38 -0400
From: "Roosenraad, Chris" <chris.roosenraad@twcable.com>
To: Paul Vixie <vixie@isc.org>, "namedroppers@ops.ietf.org" <namedroppers@ops.ietf.org>
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 08:45:36 -0400
Subject: Re: [dnsext] Re: need new flag bit in EDNS, "do me no favours"(DMNF)
Thread-Topic: [dnsext] Re: need new flag bit in EDNS, "do me no favours"(DMNF)
Thread-Index: Act1C7AZuxi4oDOgTzi38turbZ/QAA==
Message-ID: <C8EC41E5.F35F%chris.roosenraad@twcable.com>
In-Reply-To: <72674.1288058394@nsa.vix.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.0.0.100825
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
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/>

Paul,


>>I can see web browers setting dns64 (vendor), bad site (user control) and
>> nxdomain (user control).
>
>so it sounds like we need a new edns option blob which is a variable
>length
>mask (so, right now it would be one octet long), which would only be
>defined
>for RD=1.  the first bit of the first octet would be "no web error
>redirect"
>(NWED).  the name of the option would be "do me no favours" (DMNF).

Do we want to have a bit of a parallel effort to define the initial set of
such bits? If we're going to go through the trouble of defining this new
variable length mask, we probably should have > 1 options for it out of
the gate.

>i'm willing to write this up in this form, even given that i've missed the
>-00 deadline for beijing (where i will not be present, by the way), and
>i'll
>be happy to add any other preference bits if (1) they are only meaningful
>for
>RD=1, (2) they do not affect the recursive-to-authoritative q-tuple at
>all,
>(3) they can be expressed in a single binary digit ("bit"), and (4) there
>is
>a simple unambigious one-paragraph english text that explains the meaning.
>
>am i on the wrong track according to those (three) who have +1'd this so
>far?
>
>is anyone else +1 for this approach (willing to review, etc)?

I think this could be useful for other types of client to server
preferences communications, so I'm definitely interested in the idea, and
will therefore be glad to provide editing/review/etc.


--
Chris R. Roosenraad
Principal Engineer
Time Warner Cable - ATG
13820 Sunrise Valley Drive
Herndon, VA  20171
+1 (703) 345 3438
chris.roosenraad@twcable.com



This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail and any printout.