IETF Logo Mail Archive

[DNSOP] EDNS0 clientID is a wider-internet question

George Michaelson <ggm@algebras.org> Thu, 20 July 2017 17:00 UTC

Return-Path: <ggm@algebras.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 14D6C131D12 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Jul 2017 10:00:50 -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, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=algebras-org.20150623.gappssmtp.com
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 QTk9vFQki0Vt for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Jul 2017 10:00:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ua0-x22f.google.com (mail-ua0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c08::22f]) (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 BF492131D0A for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Jul 2017 10:00:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ua0-x22f.google.com with SMTP id w45so27776064uac.5 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Jul 2017 10:00:24 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=algebras-org.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=cc8c2TlXwc/cH2hLY11PxqSgSPrHtzEA+6sfdq1p+rI=; b=whQihSnJJsivBimvWDB/zkltBhMu+SA+QaAQIT0XbdifQlnhhCUuPDYUDzQbM/v6zG kjYfrJdlqvQ3B0ULEjFNCosvag2qfgFJkFTK6K8rsNWt1E9Z5tRbkXFDQssZEabVKxIO XPmVUF/jy/1yNgJjmwNNJEj3pjzefG5W/jXn1GoC0GzR6Pm0FrdO45uNqSa31E3BFC+7 DLTjT5KnR8sRKZrcPURjq9O9rAS4CDLn8QimI9nORMoKcmMnysdGHdWiA801VeUfFIpR ++rg0mgeaVZPjdv0VKjoTJmnepfYoqfPNk4bKrhHD+n4pCMGzU6s8MbhCYfUTA6tGCz6 m7ng==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=cc8c2TlXwc/cH2hLY11PxqSgSPrHtzEA+6sfdq1p+rI=; b=APcpBzryFRN9AlvpEx+2rQIAS1G+fk5rWrIgDU+Y3ToKRAlLyCt0HZgH6vQzf6tE3U 1Vpb9iLHhEBkOJQSbLOsGseN8vM4XdHT457eASqIbUHNszchLJs600ZkO//xPecKfvWt 2kko2AmUOogbqLPW+EGKmXnvFXQMDSl3ND13n+W5QTZEbQOB58q8izr2tGgZ/APX3XiZ QZUmTsZq0xLVD0oIJWIP1HWj3g9FFeRGmN6/GN9/IAVYpNezxWCa98OqQ05LMWRd0VnQ 3d42bLD2NslSSticPqFCDBH5GSufKM6EOa4rWDsph039s7hc9W3Fyyu2C/nl+HcFcSV/ InVw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AIVw112Qts0alcu8wvP+5Vb67tZx1pZTuPhp924QM+y/O4V6XLLBQ2ao /F55T/cnaGsU4IE6weInBtn/X1KhJ9p2Wjw=
X-Received: by 10.31.7.211 with SMTP id 202mr2271488vkh.212.1500570023733; Thu, 20 Jul 2017 10:00:23 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.103.68.87 with HTTP; Thu, 20 Jul 2017 10:00:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Originating-IP: [2001:67c:370:128:f81e:2ea1:f1aa:ee5d]
From: George Michaelson <ggm@algebras.org>
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2017 19:00:23 +0200
Message-ID: <CAKr6gn1mZ7VTfM_wtpFX-G95wg-bWRA_YciZScFvr-YX8eYdWg@mail.gmail.com>
To: dnsop WG <dnsop@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/DhzsRHesYsHSCrbgmgX_m_TC4uc>
Subject: [DNSOP] EDNS0 clientID is a wider-internet question
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, 20 Jul 2017 17:00:50 -0000

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.

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.

-G

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email