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

["Peter van Dijk" <[e-mail]>]

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/