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

[Ray Bellis <[e-mail]>]

On 28/03/2017 16:02, Dave Lawrence wrote:

> Understandable.  I honestly have similar reservations.
> 
> One thing that clouds this a little, as far as our draft is concerned,
> is that the ISP's CPE already knows this information so in a sense it
> isn't that a different party is being informed.
> 
> What I'm trying to accomplish with this draft is acknowledge the
> practical realities that this sort of option is already in use on the
> Internet and will continue to be used no matter what the WG does about
> either of our drafts.  I also wanted to drag the PII issues out into
> the open, into one place where they would have to be confronted by
> implementers and operators.
> 
> I fear that a splintered effort on including full client-identifying
> information in several different ways is going to lead to problematic
> fragmentation and harder management.

The examples in your draft appear focused on identifying specific end
user devices, e.g. to selectively enable parental controls on a
per-device basis.

Mine is intended to identify clients based on their presented IP address
(whether that be the public IP address of multiple NATed end users
talking to a recursor, or the external IP address of a recursor talking
to an authoritative server).  The primary purpose is for admission
control (i.e. ACLs).

I therefore think there's a simple test here:

If we can imagine scenarios in which an auth or recursive server that is
behind e.g. a load-balancing proxy needs to know *both* the internal
"client ID" (per your draft) and the client's effective external source
IP address (per mine) then both drafts serve their own distinct purpose
and shouldn't be merged.

Ray