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

Dave Lawrence <tale@dd.org> Thu, 30 March 2017 16:20 UTC

Return-Path: <tale@dd.org>
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 39119129631 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 Mar 2017 09:20:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.902
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 VPrONNr5Kjju for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 Mar 2017 09:20:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gro.dd.org (gro.dd.org [207.136.192.136]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 75342126C3D for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 30 Mar 2017 09:20:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by gro.dd.org (Postfix, from userid 102) id 661643F468; Thu, 30 Mar 2017 12:20:50 -0400 (EDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <22749.12386.307924.323749@gro.dd.org>
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2017 12:20:50 -0400
From: Dave Lawrence <tale@dd.org>
To: IETF DNSOP WG <dnsop@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <13709563-6144-4f9b-c0c7-32436387452d@bellis.me.uk>
References: <22745.38650.113925.208670@gro.dd.org> <04dcb30b-e20c-f064-36be-2b7bcc45d9d9@bellis.me.uk> <22746.53073.480897.456359@gro.dd.org> <a2f28b67-d47d-3f6a-e7dc-faa47e6db5a5@bellis.me.uk> <22747.54720.206457.78907@gro.dd.org> <ea46280b-b25b-a0a7-eacd-05bc40c587b6@bellis.me.uk> <CA+nkc8A=ob4iXmeL44GCyhW0E_Z5YtbFRv52h6QPfNDcycJ79g@mail.gmail.com> <13709563-6144-4f9b-c0c7-32436387452d@bellis.me.uk>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/4fay4EUSI7UMjkhODyaNONZU_Dc>
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: Thu, 30 Mar 2017 16:20:53 -0000

On 30/03/2017 09:52, Bob Harold wrote:
>> Just a thought - would it be better to have two different EDNS0 options
>> that carry an IP, or to have one EDNS0 option that carries both an IP
>> and a 'type', and allow multiples of that option in a packet?

Ray Bellis writes:
> IMHO, two options is better.

I'm with Ray on this, both because of his earlier observation re: TXT,
and also because this complicates the option design and adds yet<
another number registry.