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

Ray Bellis <> Fri, 08 March 2019 10:33 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D76EF1277DE for <>; Fri, 8 Mar 2019 02:33:50 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vbB_9TEvov5a for <>; Fri, 8 Mar 2019 02:33:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a03:9800:20:1::2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7C8E412787D for <>; Fri, 8 Mar 2019 02:33:48 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=dkim; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:In-Reply-To: MIME-Version:Date:Message-ID:From:References:To:Subject:Sender:Reply-To:Cc: Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender: Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=E8ghDMQyV8Y9IgW0pDa03ZFKXiowScLYRNPZa9zbQ5U=; b=DprupLs2JDIrevm957zIV4PcNI g2z5lC0r2kcTJX+2rKH+0XBVhKZotTabOWsYzqJkig/jPSA22WdKWpjFYgVqzL/Xq3anzn3WmIhwS lRP07vUZUKzjvtk+XIwUAIAdrrENw4rtHAi6TczYDDDemy/soPrW0Kp4wLpdGmyDKFyU=;
Received: from [] (port=59817 helo=Rays-MacBook-Pro.local) by ([]:465) with esmtpsa ( (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) id 1h2Cp0-0002rg-JG (Exim 4.89) for (return-path <>); Fri, 08 Mar 2019 10:33:46 +0000
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
From: Ray Bellis <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2019 10:33:46 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.5.3
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-GB
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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 10:33:51 -0000

On 08/03/2019 03:58, Paul Wouters wrote:

> If you have a specific use case, get a code point for that specific use
> case. Than you know for sure what the blob means and that it will be
> interpreted by all parties in the same standard RFC way.

I have some generic use cases in mind (subject to the existing cautions 
about bilateral agreements, consenting adults, etc) and also a very 
specific use case.

I have customers that want to tag a packet received by a DNS 
load-balancer and then on the back-end server use that tag to make 
decisions about the processing of that packet.

They want to do that with heterogenous off-the-shelf software, which 
means that implementations have to agree which code point to use.  This 
strongly suggests requesting an *assigned* code point.

Please also note that the requirements for assignment of an EDNS option 
is "Expert Review".  It does *not* require a Standards Track RFC.

It's therefore none of DNSOP's business what the values of those tags 
are, nor what the resulting packet processing decisions will be.  As far 
as the *protocol* is concerned, they're opaque.

It's not even any of DNSOP's business how large that blob is, but the 
current 16-bit limit is a concession (or some might say appeasement) to 
the perceived privacy concerns.

So while not requiring an RFC to obtain an assignment, the I-D is 
published for feedback on the design aspects of the option and to act as 
the reference specification for it.