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

Christopher Morrow <> Tue, 25 July 2017 00:59 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE70812702E for <>; Mon, 24 Jul 2017 17:59:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.698
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.698 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, HTML_MESSAGE=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 DQ6Gx1AYZseq for <>; Mon, 24 Jul 2017 17:59:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c09::234]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F17B2124BE8 for <>; Mon, 24 Jul 2017 17:59:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id g6so64738328qkf.5 for <>; Mon, 24 Jul 2017 17:59:06 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc; bh=K7omV4cw1d/DOYN9qKBOQbVjoLa558LJliedauD3068=; b=bUmiizlCIfkKCDdAzMxvqJmta8LfBpkTwoNcydWoJGEgg/iEBWpYNqPC2HVX4ZTfUT plU0rNwWtGyaYAq90Au0CdCI+3p3tnDu06+mCZi3wtI4uUpt27g19+Bx51879MvOVjb2 Tt3xeb6/04RgbF9qBZ8t9Cf4+AhblEFRSgMvKePCx+/QQ7M5nAmiFrJ90q1KfpGlmqwF d4aDOYhe36aatPqlF3cdSwYE673mvmMwWQfddUACV4lZVzsCbDGur/1rWzS/Pm3MJaS6 9yM8XXenrhp2zVCnWtPtj/Mzky5Y1SR9e8EsXdXMF8l1pMtvGXdu2XLOqJqRqwMevAxx Z+9g==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=K7omV4cw1d/DOYN9qKBOQbVjoLa558LJliedauD3068=; b=ESCPaRaTb9zwemmWlOhfO1/9G1tbWIx/uty1Nk60/TEopW2v94+lYz7A7M+B6tsY9z dzj0ERs+cfZfp4UATZaWPOxB8TrTGlIrlMJW3gBaabqRZXmzF46iuWfOPyfw0CsQCkkD zibS6C+8W+Vm5WLoD3KRjHPSvYqKfBeq1ye5Q/MsW5wtT3XkL0jXS3KYmr5SOrvdgEMD 8+V0IWPr8ddNfXlPkToSol56FiL2CUWTMr9MMX1QOf6kMeTw6I87gTwPz03uCoRw1/tL KDhsj/aIBL3cFiQijxxlJewj7zTSMOKJIRTb7tdpHyaAnSbhxpW4YYqfuuleYfbcKCmJ v22g==
X-Gm-Message-State: AIVw111Yxg7GU5E2q4rzTZJMGj+89vGySCAPGrtQC/hyWAAuRaWD/yda fWe4E6liAYO6e5Uvi+7RXVhxglW5cXdd
X-Received: by with SMTP id 4mr23809748qkm.151.1500944346118; Mon, 24 Jul 2017 17:59:06 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Mon, 24 Jul 2017 17:59:05 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <>
From: Christopher Morrow <>
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 20:59:05 -0400
X-Google-Sender-Auth: 0A3vOvFqdGKVO8393S4cn7NUXZY
Message-ID: <>
To: Ted Lemon <>
Cc: George Michaelson <>, dnsop WG <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a114c8000940193055519d6ac"
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: Tue, 25 Jul 2017 00:59:09 -0000

On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 1:54 PM, Ted Lemon <> wrote:

> It would be nice if there were an RFC to point to that used a method that
> didn't include PII.   For the use cases of which I am ware, there is no
> need to identify individual devices: only policies.   What's lacking is a
> way to do this in the home router, so the PII winds up getting exported to
> the cloud not because that's necessary to accomplish the filtering but
> because it's the only available place where the translation from
> PII->policy can be done in practice.   Unfortunately, solving _that_
> problem is definitely out of scope for DNSOP.
> isn't the query path here: (largely)
  client  -> cpe-router -> provider-cache-resolver -> auth-dns

and at the cache->auth layer it's potentially the case that the provider
can say: "use precision of /24" or "use precision of /17" ? So, there's
really not much "pii" that can be worried over at the
provider-cache-resolver (they already know who you are...) and they
(provider) can decide how much granularity is "important" to release to the
upstream authoritative cache.