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

tjw ietf <tjw.ietf@gmail.com> Thu, 30 March 2017 16:52 UTC

Return-Path: <tjw.ietf@gmail.com>
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 2FB851296BF for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 Mar 2017 09:52:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 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_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=gmail.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 r5LZ-yWgUrRg for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 Mar 2017 09:52:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wr0-x235.google.com (mail-wr0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c0c::235]) (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 CD6AC12948F for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 30 Mar 2017 09:52:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wr0-x235.google.com with SMTP id w11so67653025wrc.3 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 30 Mar 2017 09:52:21 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=FYCKtCjae4R5FVsVIM/ITWCC704yEL8yjRU84e7BsEk=; b=SaRgNR7x+7ftnEvU43GtgikmYJq7UIQmrThiPhDSdpjHV5ee5e345W96cfHtm3Ve3c 8FxTgD4rCX0ayKp7LpAkPL2oyUyyCwHvH/xFfQbv1HwU0+CyZJahMt59O6k+w8ItrYcV TElbfL5mk4GmQuIlfkNa7L0ZTbeZbZOOtFZDgGRlvUtIT4iOKPTgzXDYyax08/Rhi7Wt WZWaOeqyYMFhk1Igv3kRv5RFi898d7Ef2HTgc5PZ98b8Ccc9cTyhJ49j3SB2PcDoxQsM 6XkUXebZXP13CgASs+rtUMFGiiCPqbZAZR6DVaieNWhxmFWKZJt/+ES+09m3bZhs0Smu Sljw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=FYCKtCjae4R5FVsVIM/ITWCC704yEL8yjRU84e7BsEk=; b=toLPIk3ZS0uLGLOX2CFpM84elZMM15h+RtDyXOqUi/EmPYzjoxYI1Jg1jLvY+/75Io 7Ca6D8NmHe5CwUBOpI2JRbvqQrFDSKFVBsU92j9KBtVM0jQV5lHCgDYw2Ip5TFkbllJk 4/YeDD1DXJ6uJHCJlJbyVpyoDi5JOgt5Kwyatij0nrnFJRaJ4pjv/LpvOrM28FbbxUQz MArWoC483YT+/Cv8xSiUwr7gLqGPAdHnjGS3rcvHCfYM6f3fFuxYkm5EfxBFEqNDC7X2 Sj4thw4m/ecDTtxf0kzAPmG0zXsRUM7t2LGxxtSACD2GIrOUqM0dM3AGwCyiyxXsGFGl +HLg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AFeK/H2Yccn5eIaCQsa2wEKu/rpIW9q2fA5xzVDH9toZVgPS7vNvpnqDKbDjyMcbxJAjj2YtjhHvCJFS7iutQg==
X-Received: by 10.28.146.12 with SMTP id u12mr1372540wmd.142.1490892740204; Thu, 30 Mar 2017 09:52:20 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.223.165.70 with HTTP; Thu, 30 Mar 2017 09:52:19 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <22749.12386.307924.323749@gro.dd.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> <ea46280b-b25b-a0a7-eacd-05bc40c587b6@bellis.me.uk> <CA+nkc8A=ob4iXmeL44GCyhW0E_Z5YtbFRv52h6QPfNDcycJ79g@mail.gmail.com> <13709563-6144-4f9b-c0c7-32436387452d@bellis.me.uk> <22749.12386.307924.323749@gro.dd.org>
From: tjw ietf <tjw.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2017 11:52:19 -0500
Message-ID: <CADyWQ+E0knah58yYU2kSM9fL2n-+KEikpPh+eXAPUjs1P71BKw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Dave Lawrence <tale@dd.org>
Cc: IETF DNSOP WG <dnsop@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a114434a02db67a054bf584fb
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/TcIX2Jl6fQk5QaZ_s55W1BiKXTs>
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: Thu, 30 Mar 2017 16:52:24 -0000

Catching up with the discussion....

I like having two, well documented options.   I do see where the option in
David's draft has too many moving parts.

On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 11:20 AM, Dave Lawrence <tale@dd.org> wrote:

> On 30/03/2017 09:52, Bob Harold wrote:
> >> Just a thought - would it be better to have two different EDNS0 options
> >> that carry an IP, or to have one EDNS0 option that carries both an IP
> >> and a 'type', and allow multiples of that option in a packet?
>
> Ray Bellis writes:
> > IMHO, two options is better.
>
> I'm with Ray on this, both because of his earlier observation re: TXT,
> and also because this complicates the option design and adds yet<
> another number registry.
>
> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list
> DNSOP@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
>