Re: [DNSOP] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-bellis-dnsop-edns-tags-00.txt

Dick Franks <rwfranks@acm.org> Fri, 08 March 2019 10:02 UTC

Return-Path: <rwfranks@gmail.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 A4545130F4C for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Mar 2019 02:02:48 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.648
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.648 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.249, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no 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 wrHZzCFEgRmV for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Mar 2019 02:02:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-it1-f179.google.com (mail-it1-f179.google.com [209.85.166.179]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A04FB129284 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Fri, 8 Mar 2019 02:02:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-it1-f179.google.com with SMTP id l139so20464441ita.5 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Fri, 08 Mar 2019 02:02:42 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=JjMahP2v+TwsMwz02Nftyq/CBaoaC1iv617oP4yC+ww=; b=frE2bCeEfwFzgDzcQzuDQIi36zwPf0nPV4oduwrCT+sydiTpVaB+0uvV5o1nq8CNUA WeWVp3p/8DPO6J/M0g4ZCPo9jjXEiQGcIv7j14nWzvCRizfP8btXHWgjLJoCtvSxIWRh AzG2yAfl4roHzBV8x+2xlTmqsMPc4EJ6BKL4GrlfGYDXpGYZwm2xYyJnh6BO5nNWm0kI t4dEkp3yw8RuVOcoOPcTtGSpl2JSwIg78aab/kfB/ZavDueY4NqzMby7g17zofHBRq85 FLUq6Kku0wn9gW4iuNIUV0XX6xcK4WSWzLRUg1fmstCYhfGP0qOefmdFduPdS1xz0hED cYMw==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWSuN40+E4CUDCZVcyEFCidpxxpT2yBJbg3LRvA+zYWo0rCuZOX TmzRx56adyDZIiLy+UJSU0l1SPpA7GWZQG31/SdgcA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqyFhbQgjFmlhw5NOXGXF2aLlzZdIAKQ4HeW+JW6boRraIVqBDkgsgnjUq1owZAB+X06OhaHnSvV0js2rYDN7LY=
X-Received: by 2002:a24:338c:: with SMTP id k134mr8146135itk.137.1552039360370; Fri, 08 Mar 2019 02:02:40 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <155171606493.5281.3957934874516100450.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <5c3cc3f9-2225-9077-fb9e-0fb940bd1c1b@isc.org> <yblef7mp7io.fsf@wu.hardakers.net> <CAKW6Ri5doXL=uBpEy3Eqrkoyfu9rvt9upH9qxXkzZKUgS_=dMw@mail.gmail.com> <ybla7iap5nx.fsf@wu.hardakers.net> <B137690E-8063-4416-BFE2-706F0589AD5F@isc.org> <yblsgw125x4.fsf@w7.hardakers.net> <40758bbd-5289-8e21-8043-3c3d09c6b8d1@nic.cz> <bd27789a-e6f8-adca-874f-a4c298f0891f@bellis.me.uk> <alpine.LRH.2.21.1903072249100.7137@bofh.nohats.ca>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LRH.2.21.1903072249100.7137@bofh.nohats.ca>
From: Dick Franks <rwfranks@acm.org>
Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2019 10:02:03 +0000
Message-ID: <CAKW6Ri5R2nXN+KgPkHPDUoa1N6q+Oib-Ly5jqa7MPyTUtai-AA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca>
Cc: dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000c09d6e05839252ec"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/9GojRoQin4a29UAeDv3La5OpRLw>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-bellis-dnsop-edns-tags-00.txt
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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, 08 Mar 2019 10:02:49 -0000

On Fri, 8 Mar 2019 at 03:58, Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca> wrote:

8<

You are suggesting to introduce an option code point to convey blobs in
> DNS. So different parties can send and receive blobs. You think or hope
> that these parties will interpret this blob the same. But you have no
> guarantee this is true.
>

groundhog day


> If you have a specific use case, get a code point for that specific use
> case. Than you know for sure what the blob means and that it will be
> interpreted by all parties in the same standard RFC way.
>

There are exactly two parties to a bi-lateral agreement.


> If your use case is too private/secret or non-standard, then use a
> code point from the "Reserved for Local/Experimental Use" range.


My inclination too, but the argument cannot be made by ignoring the
clearly stated requirement for agreement between participating parties.


--Dick