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

神明達哉 <> Fri, 08 March 2019 18:33 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA9531313A1 for <>; Fri, 8 Mar 2019 10:33:56 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.669
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.669 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.249, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, FROM_EXCESS_BASE64=0.979, 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 ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id E2cb7Z3qhBl1 for <>; Fri, 8 Mar 2019 10:33:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 10DC2128664 for <>; Fri, 8 Mar 2019 10:33:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id t18so22431028wrx.2 for <>; Fri, 08 Mar 2019 10:33:54 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=pxUEBweI2uN8xvZx2hT7jvrd1lx3b7pYm/lpJnuUI10=; b=gpLb8rQvB0H4mIMVClWWgDvqWNhvPA+NJORhPQEvHpnEp62s9Dob31UglpBiGcKkOX hfBeiVHISnfVgbvbtXXdzZS/lMJj8+MKyxD+vimdU2AqlMyOn5JmgXQxpDRderk9KrM1 TjOqxxFSvFyObeDYfbkCd7p1TcA0DribPfFis2jyiexv9E1/cbD6mLfMvhglEwG4HqhQ 4dr8v6cUR36Vh0+gVqrewMjW+KuNnYs722fqDd3Ahz9//cAirfAHuAXs/3IdT1lIBPGV GNpQ9GDw7DFEo+CJ7uyBO2lNXrvfyoAWgXDJOOEjirs22d4q9U8wD1S/TF2qKlIDGK9C WFTw==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXn+pr+v9Jj0/EG5xvtulq4q+6XQMHHXnsMg8WMzCkiP7VByCZp hBrUKL4O+9r0CD2EwlpDxYRBMb7DBoBFYdV7KjfKLMTA
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxIOgNPHo7rumUwBJqcDDHSZXvuI4YXF1W1DKrwYpWxPdr0ccsadVF/4/RlnuDJptdSATNdE4om1mIueQpTAy8=
X-Received: by 2002:adf:f688:: with SMTP id v8mr11554848wrp.159.1552070033129; Fri, 08 Mar 2019 10:33:53 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: =?UTF-8?B?56We5piO6YGU5ZOJ?= <>
Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2019 10:33:40 -0800
Message-ID: <>
To: Paul Wouters <>
Cc: Ray Bellis <>, dnsop <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000fdc9e60583997632"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-bellis-dnsop-edns-tags-00.txt
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 08 Mar 2019 18:33:57 -0000

At Fri, 8 Mar 2019 12:03:27 -0500 (EST),
Paul Wouters <> wrote:

> [my last email in this thread. I don't think we are progressing and I'd
>   like to give others a chance to participate in this thread. But feel
>   free to reply]
> >>  But assigned and left completely opague is not really suitable for
> >>  "heterogenous off-the-shelf software". These different vendors must
> >>  understand the meaning of the opaque data even if their functionality
> >>  can be non-standard.
> >
> > No, it does *not* require that at all.
> Unless the implementations just log these numbers, they are expected to
> do or trigger something. Either with their own interpretation, or by
> some helper process or configuration magic interpreting these things for

+1.  It's very difficult for me to imagine how we can expect that two
"heterogenous off-the-shelf software" products can be interoperable
just because we have a standardized EDNS option code for opaque tags.

For example, assume that an operator uses dnsdist as a DNS load
balancer and BIND 9 as backend servers with RRL, and the operator
wants to trust particular clients (identified by their IP addresses)
and bypass RRL for them.  How can we expect off-the-shelf dnsdist and
off-the-shelf BIND 9 support this operation with the only assumption
being that both of them support edns-tags?  Is there an implicit
assumption that:
- this version of off-the-shelf dnsdist happens to have a new
  configuration option so it will add an edns-tag with setting bit X
  when the client IP address matches a specified set of address list,
- this version of off-the-shelf BIND 9 happens to have a new
  configuration option to skip RRL if an incoming request contains an
  edns-tag option with bit X on

At this moment I don't have a strong opinion on the proposal itself,
but the "off-the-shelf software" argument doesn't sound very
convincing or realistic.  Perhaps I miss some implicit assumptions, in
which case I'd like the draft to explain these in more detail.

JINMEI, Tatuya