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

Ray Bellis <ray@bellis.me.uk> Fri, 08 March 2019 10:33 UTC

Return-Path: <ray@bellis.me.uk>
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 D76EF1277DE for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Mar 2019 02:33:50 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
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: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=portfast.net
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 vbB_9TEvov5a for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Mar 2019 02:33:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.portfast.net (mail.portfast.net [IPv6:2a03:9800:20:1::2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7C8E412787D for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Fri, 8 Mar 2019 02:33:48 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=portfast.net; 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 [88.212.170.147] (port=59817 helo=Rays-MacBook-Pro.local) by mail.portfast.net ([188.246.200.9]:465) with esmtpsa (fixed_plain:ray@bellis.me.uk) (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) id 1h2Cp0-0002rg-JG (Exim 4.89) for dnsop@ietf.org (return-path <ray@bellis.me.uk>); Fri, 08 Mar 2019 10:33:46 +0000
To: dnsop@ietf.org
References: <155171606493.5281.3957934874516100450.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <5c3cc3f9-2225-9077-fb9e-0fb940bd1c1b@isc.org> <yblef7mp7io.fsf@wu.hardakers.net> <CAKW6Ri5doXL=uBpEy3Eqrkoyfu9rvt9upH9qxXkzZKUgS_=dMw@mail.gmail.com> <ybla7iap5nx.fsf@wu.hardakers.net> <B137690E-8063-4416-BFE2-706F0589AD5F@isc.org> <yblsgw125x4.fsf@w7.hardakers.net> <40758bbd-5289-8e21-8043-3c3d09c6b8d1@nic.cz> <bd27789a-e6f8-adca-874f-a4c298f0891f@bellis.me.uk> <alpine.LRH.2.21.1903072249100.7137@bofh.nohats.ca>
From: Ray Bellis <ray@bellis.me.uk>
Message-ID: <5f06e2ad-3710-4dbf-3c04-ca31f8b19c4a@bellis.me.uk>
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: <alpine.LRH.2.21.1903072249100.7137@bofh.nohats.ca>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-GB
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/jJVnAfDeMWz1e9Hnep4SYSVokZc>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-bellis-dnsop-edns-tags-00.txt
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: 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.

Ray