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

[Ray Bellis <[e-mail]>]

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.

Ray