Re: [DNSOP] draft-tale-dnsop-edns-clientid

"Peter van Dijk" <peter.van.dijk@powerdns.com> Fri, 31 March 2017 14:09 UTC

Return-Path: <peter.van.dijk@powerdns.com>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C87F6120326 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 31 Mar 2017 07:09:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id q141J79dEUmk for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 31 Mar 2017 07:09:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from shannon.7bits.nl (shannon.7bits.nl [89.188.0.40]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 744E3129495 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Fri, 31 Mar 2017 07:09:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.137.1] (unknown [IPv6:2001:610:666:0:4835:5d5f:ecfb:87d3]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: peter) by shannon.7bits.nl (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 09855C1B96; Fri, 31 Mar 2017 16:09:11 +0200 (CEST)
From: "Peter van Dijk" <peter.van.dijk@powerdns.com>
To: dnsop@ietf.org
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2017 16:09:11 +0200
Message-ID: <129BED3E-6BB3-4960-B144-373A04F1AFD5@powerdns.com>
In-Reply-To: <22746.54599.126962.148463@gro.dd.org>
References: <22745.38650.113925.208670@gro.dd.org> <DB1F2A9F-1473-49D7-B0A0-FBD077B09CF9@powerdns.com> <3BE34823-E83C-4F9D-ABE1-35C61F9E2996@ogud.com> <22746.29861.99723.209867@gro.dd.org> <B8FE1E18-A11E-4C76-9C69-9E3354DB6B92@powerdns.com> <22746.54599.126962.148463@gro.dd.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.9.6r5347)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/0R3QKhZJB2nLGp_Txd_puFf4kmg>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] draft-tale-dnsop-edns-clientid
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <dnsop.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dnsop/>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsop@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2017 14:09:17 -0000

On 28 Mar 2017, at 23:27, Dave Lawrence wrote:

> Peter van Dijk writes:
>> Please note that neither draft handles the use case of also passing the
>> port number, which in a world of growing CGN deployment, may soon prove
>> quite important.
>
> I agree that neither handles it explicitly.  Ray's singular use case
> doesn't really need it, and our draft can handle ports through the DNS
> address family mechanism if needed, albeit less compactly that could
> be otherwise envisioned.  If this were something that others think
> should somehow be made explicit via some other mechanism, I could see
> incorporating that.

How would you do it in the DNS address family?

Kind regards,
-- 
Peter van Dijk
PowerDNS.COM BV - https://www.powerdns.com/