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

"Peter van Dijk" <peter.van.dijk@powerdns.com> Fri, 08 March 2019 11:14 UTC

Return-Path: <peter.van.dijk@powerdns.com>
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 154881277D0 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Mar 2019 03:14:04 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.199
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 Fq-mVEt6UB2x for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Mar 2019 03:14:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx4.open-xchange.com (alcatraz.open-xchange.com [87.191.39.187]) (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 5686C126E5C for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Fri, 8 Mar 2019 03:14:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from open-xchange.com (imap.open-xchange.com [10.20.30.10]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx4.open-xchange.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AD5336A262; Fri, 8 Mar 2019 12:13:59 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [10.242.2.36] (unknown [10.242.2.36]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by open-xchange.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 73A3D3C0933; Fri, 8 Mar 2019 12:13:59 +0100 (CET)
From: "Peter van Dijk" <peter.van.dijk@powerdns.com>
To: dnsop@ietf.org
Date: Fri, 08 Mar 2019 12:13:57 +0100
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.12.4r5594)
Message-ID: <CCB5C560-7681-45FF-B428-02420528DE76@powerdns.com>
In-Reply-To: <5f06e2ad-3710-4dbf-3c04-ca31f8b19c4a@bellis.me.uk>
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> <5f06e2ad-3710-4dbf-3c04-ca31f8b19c4a@bellis.me.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/qUIzBroc5j-bwp8pro1ew5QTSIU>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] 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 11:14:04 -0000

Hello Ray,

On 8 Mar 2019, at 11:33, Ray Bellis wrote:

> 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.

Me too, and I’ve spoken to several other people who also have such 
needs. I bet dnsdist users would eat this up if we implemented it.

> 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.

Well said!

Kind regards,
-- 
Peter van Dijk
PowerDNS.COM BV - https://www.powerdns.com/