Re: [DNSOP] EDNS0 clientID is a wider-internet question

Suzanne Woolf <> Fri, 21 July 2017 09:13 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8CAFB126557 for <>; Fri, 21 Jul 2017 02:13:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8EOdawd28YOh for <>; Fri, 21 Jul 2017 02:13:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::229]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AB37A129A96 for <>; Fri, 21 Jul 2017 02:13:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id w191so3421945wmw.1 for <>; Fri, 21 Jul 2017 02:13:45 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=WISX1sl8pQNMTpQBrn5qEH48LVPu0yDDTi/HcKmTKZ8=; b=DMkfL6fat0guv2VDTQeJThXf+GZslpdaRxcWugXk4PfxC3kdAbbKXyaFvX3N9tzkVD fbIPo0KCPcJIMtDePMBrSrk9KF4kAntbmQtsOi+xrPno+TWDmvqVaGdQp1v1smBOdG83 Rk9hxxRFZUm1Y04xWHl65GWMEz4NYHnZy/SDif6SOonYE8LgmIMevF06WV4pII0/2/0I aueAE3Hz9Cg7CjHbohXIzWKMthySkpDslz73gN3amger84CS9YvWV9aNm8fogaGFFS+L nGFgdAAP2gMyWwfr6j+PjojFtihRqDvwjoGNuPhuuV5/eS2ZUgMVwbwfah4a15M3D1IY POLw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=WISX1sl8pQNMTpQBrn5qEH48LVPu0yDDTi/HcKmTKZ8=; b=iyfnGoBR9dtOHFqhmtlAYay6dKO6dz04SYiIa9YnUeZxX1lnJTDt9OOF8iV3saxCYI NgnV6VS6U0dIBDjgCQtoKuk+ChWwd+aX7X3hWWpXd7IMxWD8DQ20cjpBH2VtJDfd8v16 pL0NjwxJsRPUi7pprJAYL+XoZgT2e+AYhtKkT3AFF05gxu6I7y9mL2brQlLYERbxrzub Eu1t8VfODxDDU3Z0O9s30U3LAbYqJfnCKRcYzqyEKz9NxdUKyXLksseL0ZphQl1Q/WmW jcu7SoyNxKvjAZn4F4Va4BFGBHBQ/e3sMQSOtXSKSSvp4lcFljby9MKALT6CrIp1UCtW 9AOw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AIVw113MksUeQhGcbq6L3lnLkc79fg89edzcwWwuymCDmSsmAas9xS6a WCGEmg5LX5XXzp8Zz5A=
X-Received: by with SMTP id c87mr4028408wmi.36.1500628424078; Fri, 21 Jul 2017 02:13:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2001:67c:370:128:1cb6:5324:3799:1231? ([2001:67c:370:128:1cb6:5324:3799:1231]) by with ESMTPSA id 92sm6820842wro.68.2017. (version=TLS1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 21 Jul 2017 02:13:43 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2104\))
From: Suzanne Woolf <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2017 05:13:41 -0400
Cc: dnsop WG <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <>
To: George Michaelson <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2104)
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] EDNS0 clientID is a wider-internet question
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, 21 Jul 2017 09:13:48 -0000


> On Jul 20, 2017, at 1:00 PM, George Michaelson <> wrote:
> I probably will not carry the WG with me on this, but I find myself
> thinking the PII aspect of client-ID makes it a wider-internet
> question and we might have views as a WG, and promote questions as a
> WG, but I think the "final call" on this is something which needs more
> than WG approval.

A couple of points of precision on this: first, I’m not sure “PII” is rigorously defined in our context, so we might need to be more specific on that (although I agree with the intuitive sense you seem to have about it).

Second, technically the WG doesn’t approve publication of a document anyway; a decision by the WG to advance a particular document along the process is neither necessary nor sufficient to get it published; there are several additional steps to publication approval.

With those things said, however:

> Its a big question. I'd actually welcome adoption on many levels, but
> that isn't to pre-empt that it goes to WGLC. I think we need to
> formalize the issues and take them out of the WG for review and
> discussion.
> documenting current practice is ok btw, but .. PII.

Agreed there are some aspects here that need cross-area review, and making sure that happens is part of the chairs’ followup from discussion of the draft to date.