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

Jacob Hoffman-Andrews <jsha@eff.org> Tue, 25 July 2017 18:29 UTC

Return-Path: <jsha@eff.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 E6CD8131EAA for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 25 Jul 2017 11:29:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.002
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.002 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=eff.org
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 Y5To_Rz-xEMj for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 25 Jul 2017 11:29:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail2.eff.org (mail2.eff.org [173.239.79.204]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8C3E1131EA7 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 25 Jul 2017 11:29:56 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=eff.org; s=mail2; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Date:Message-ID:From:References:Cc:To:Subject; bh=G+AmBgrOZEoy9pISFVe/5tydxcacAUQ86Hsi4vfauFU=; b=TPUxf52e3v25Mga1TasDCab4hwaKoi/9XpbaOF7YA910eZplOdNUlcyWFHP2gT4Dbpu+5optcISm0QHUDn/JHyOxEU00eYu93ekXH4NNvp69fl3j9FWIG9z/hthgISql2p4aor9J0EazZOnA47anIw0QwATiI6xwSCtJs7c2UJY=;
Received: ; Tue, 25 Jul 2017 11:29:52 -0700
To: Paul Vixie <paul@redbarn.org>
Cc: Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca>, Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists@gmail.com>, dnsop WG <dnsop@ietf.org>, Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>, George Michaelson <ggm@algebras.org>
References: <CAKr6gn1mZ7VTfM_wtpFX-G95wg-bWRA_YciZScFvr-YX8eYdWg@mail.gmail.com> <CAPt1N1nutxneiZg1JR90O5vRXVs+0WHvRtHpwCRyn4bXpf6g4A@mail.gmail.com> <CAL9jLaZrsiGZUPJzT1bZG-K2mTt3wP=x05-_Qp=rRh8uaBjS4g@mail.gmail.com> <5D73941C-B108-4A14-AEE5-7A28BCA94373@nohats.ca> <8d27cf2a-a883-7186-11bb-eeacd0bce68c@eff.org> <5976FC55.10301@redbarn.org>
From: Jacob Hoffman-Andrews <jsha@eff.org>
Message-ID: <0bcc846c-129e-c7f8-503a-2a82eec278d5@eff.org>
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2017 11:29:53 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.1.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <5976FC55.10301@redbarn.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-US
Received-SPF: skipped for local relay
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/Uh8MTf_Qr2zco6Cgk3zEzDceJZc>
Subject: Re: [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: Tue, 25 Jul 2017 18:30:00 -0000

On 07/25/2017 01:07 AM, Paul Vixie wrote:
> i think content blocking is a reach -- in your interpretation.
>
> this is about CDN. as in, how to decide which address record set to
> give a dns client, given that all you know is the recursive server
> address, yet you're trying to implement policy for an expected tcp
> session that might immediately follow.
Perhaps I'm reading the wrong RFC? I was basing my comments on
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-tale-dnsop-edns0-clientid-01, which
very explicitly talks about content blocking:

> For example, a parental control service that restricts access to
particular domains from particular devices needs to have a
device-specific identifier.