IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Ray Bellis <ray@bellis.me.uk> Wed, 29 March 2017 15:47 UTC

Return-Path: <ray@bellis.me.uk>
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 D3A13126557 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 Mar 2017 08:47:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, 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 VouNQ9-WrICA for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 Mar 2017 08:47:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hydrogen.portfast.net (hydrogen.portfast.net [188.246.200.2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AF787128B37 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 Mar 2017 08:47:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 107-1-12-170-ip-static.hfc.comcastbusiness.net ([107.1.12.170]:57950 helo=rays-mbp.local) by hydrogen.portfast.net ([188.246.200.2]:465) with esmtpsa (fixed_plain:ray@bellis.me.uk) (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) id 1ctFp0-00014l-Ag (Exim 4.72) for dnsop@ietf.org (return-path <ray@bellis.me.uk>); Wed, 29 Mar 2017 16:47:42 +0100
To: dnsop@ietf.org
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>
From: Ray Bellis <ray@bellis.me.uk>
Message-ID: <ea46280b-b25b-a0a7-eacd-05bc40c587b6@bellis.me.uk>
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2017 10:47:43 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.12; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <22747.54720.206457.78907@gro.dd.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/9kMlPz76-zHKb5fLk25956PspY4>
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: Wed, 29 Mar 2017 15:47:49 -0000


On 29/03/2017 10:41, Dave Lawrence wrote:

> Well yes, but there's another simple test, the limited Expert Review
> guidance against duplicate functionality.  Both xpf and clientid
> provide the functionality of conveying an IP address in an EDNS0
> option.

Whilst you're correct that they both carry information that happens to
have the same format, they have different semantic intent, and it would
IMHO cause confusion if both were carried in a packet with the same
option code.

It's effectively the same argument about TXT records - there's plenty of
things that use TXT format, but it's preferred that separate RRTYPEs are
used to indicate the use case.

Ray

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email