Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-capture-format-05.txt

Stephane Bortzmeyer <> Fri, 23 February 2018 12:56 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 00797124239 for <>; Fri, 23 Feb 2018 04:56:26 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.91
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1u90RgnY-iLN for <>; Fri, 23 Feb 2018 04:56:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:67c:2218:2::4:12]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B03731270AE for <>; Fri, 23 Feb 2018 04:56:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from (localhost []) by (Postfix) with SMTP id DC9E7280696; Fri, 23 Feb 2018 13:56:21 +0100 (CET)
Received: by (Postfix, from userid 500) id D5FBC2806BA; Fri, 23 Feb 2018 13:56:21 +0100 (CET)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:67c:2218:15::11]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF36D280696; Fri, 23 Feb 2018 13:56:21 +0100 (CET)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA4DB642BE40; Fri, 23 Feb 2018 13:56:21 +0100 (CET)
Received: by (Postfix, from userid 1000) id BDB3241C0B; Fri, 23 Feb 2018 13:56:21 +0100 (CET)
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2018 13:56:21 +0100
From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <>
To: Sara Dickinson <>
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <>
X-Operating-System: Debian GNU/Linux 9.3
X-Kernel: Linux 4.9.0-5-amd64 x86_64
X-Charlie: Je suis Charlie
Organization: NIC France
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170113 (1.7.2)
X-Bogosity: No, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000003, version=1.2.2
X-PMX-Version:, Antispam-Engine:, Antispam-Data: 2018.2.23.124215
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-capture-format-05.txt
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2018 12:56:26 -0000

On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 12:31:29PM +0000,
 Sara Dickinson <> wrote 
 a message of 51 lines which said:

> We have an update to draft which we hope captures all the comments
> to-date.

I think so, too. At least, it captured mine :-)

> There are still a number of ‘QUESTIONS’ in the draft that we would
> appreciate feedback on.

>   QUESTION: Should fields be added to indicate the sampling/
>   anonymisation method used?  If so, it is proposed to use a text
>   string and RECOMMEND it contain a URI pointing to a resource
>   describing the method used.

Yes. We cannot use a registry because the number of possible methods
is high, and changing, and each method has parameters. So, the idea of
the URL seems OK.

>   QUESTION: Should there be another flag to indicate that names have
>   been normalised (e.g. converted to uniform case)?

Yes. Otherwise, you cannot survey if draft-vixie-dnsext-dns0x20 is
used ot not.

>  QUESTION: No EDNS(0) option currently includes a name, however if one
>  were to include a name and permit name compression then both these
>  mechanisms would fail.

Is it even possible? RFC 6891 does not mention it. But it says
"OPTION-DATA. MUST be treated as a bit field." which seems to imply
that storing the entire OPT RR, or the option data, as a blob, is
perfectly OK.

>  QUESTION: There has been no feedback to date requesting further work
>  on the processing partially malformed messages.  The editors are
>  inclined not to include it in this version.  It could be the subject
>  of a future extension.

I agree. We waited for this document long enough. 


> Adherence to the second two rules given in Section 3.9 of [RFC7049

Isn't it clearer to say "the last two rules"? "The second two rules"
(meaning the third and the fourth) confused me.