IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] draft-tale-dnsop-edns-clientid

Bob Harold <rharolde@umich.edu> Thu, 30 March 2017 14:53 UTC

Return-Path: <rharolde@umich.edu>
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 D345712969D for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 Mar 2017 07:53:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=umich.edu
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 YZ8UoMPHRwVt for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 Mar 2017 07:53:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yw0-x22b.google.com (mail-yw0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c05::22b]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4E71D1294DF for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 30 Mar 2017 07:53:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-yw0-x22b.google.com with SMTP id d191so25356550ywe.2 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 30 Mar 2017 07:53:00 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=umich.edu; s=google-2016-06-03; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=OxH0CQmheRpRGxwIZWOA59GxyflF9Vn18DocOk/6noY=; b=UdCoM3Gy/cDWMyatT6gX/t1ZAMbjnk4buI6ID9uP9uKF2OePbbfMH4ocEldavBwyyK dh7OFUOi/aGqhlaV1GCES21x6orcI/OY95MwAGz6ZwQc3JTEICxrJj3nPeREXTs4v3jm QD+6zqPxhVAkID3jBuCOPBUEiGiQmwbMrX9K7oCzBrftGLIYimMELFMkwqOIxwQ4+/3z kgOjvHd2CGYJPCMy1WPz2I0PqKejzrjFDjS6MyB5TlTb/EyjKagheswUYO2LoAapWTbz yTS80GxbJq3UaLXdZORpO1kPHTgv5LtbYJSOnbuGveZaANnSXB5ZxARqwRZvJLfmmxw/ EIZA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=OxH0CQmheRpRGxwIZWOA59GxyflF9Vn18DocOk/6noY=; b=P8oUBPbi5211swfpn6L0oFF3Cd2BXAYA/TUC/824GI6nzorC/q/me6iO5MWr22YB7p hqgtIEp9mqKTQtqGgP/sJP7/VZaJ/3atpvtYZK9nMmWanZOVZKKvyituuM92nhw7tJex Oq7UmR+m/H7RApO5phuj8AThhdv3oMAWXPk9Dfo3+TfB8n2RAxfi0xjuAD/SDbQ+frpw G+gVWlJv9sFFIUQ+nCMSb8Rv+8sNLWXzKa94CIHF88UFjnJPxVKYh9KgSA5VfuaT/xwg 7YLtWv8N5Te4YmD4QSlcOg8cLslqD68/43G+WiEQ9hvXqUFfIniHMwbZJ67MIw/0Jp0K 9pkw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AFeK/H2CS+STAWl2wj6xCrEajEtO3rphdCnpazKhflbkXXgOkezaTUmKcNUOc4D+Q49oig2eT3UQtQL6/tAy9g6A
X-Received: by 10.129.65.83 with SMTP id f19mr139671ywk.102.1490885580070; Thu, 30 Mar 2017 07:53:00 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.129.109.134 with HTTP; Thu, 30 Mar 2017 07:52:59 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <ea46280b-b25b-a0a7-eacd-05bc40c587b6@bellis.me.uk>
References: <22745.38650.113925.208670@gro.dd.org> <04dcb30b-e20c-f064-36be-2b7bcc45d9d9@bellis.me.uk> <22746.53073.480897.456359@gro.dd.org> <a2f28b67-d47d-3f6a-e7dc-faa47e6db5a5@bellis.me.uk> <22747.54720.206457.78907@gro.dd.org> <ea46280b-b25b-a0a7-eacd-05bc40c587b6@bellis.me.uk>
From: Bob Harold <rharolde@umich.edu>
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2017 10:52:59 -0400
Message-ID: <CA+nkc8A=ob4iXmeL44GCyhW0E_Z5YtbFRv52h6QPfNDcycJ79g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ray Bellis <ray@bellis.me.uk>
Cc: IETF DNSOP WG <dnsop@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="f403045ef57e66f7e0054bf3d9fc"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/sDvCX-dyQodkXKy30Fs6dL4AYBA>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] draft-tale-dnsop-edns-clientid
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Thu, 30 Mar 2017 14:53:05 -0000

On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 11:47 AM, Ray Bellis <ray@bellis.me.uk> wrote:

>
>
> On 29/03/2017 10:41, Dave Lawrence wrote:
>
> > Well yes, but there's another simple test, the limited Expert Review
> > guidance against duplicate functionality.  Both xpf and clientid
> > provide the functionality of conveying an IP address in an EDNS0
> > option.
>
> Whilst you're correct that they both carry information that happens to
> have the same format, they have different semantic intent, and it would
> IMHO cause confusion if both were carried in a packet with the same
> option code.
>

Just a thought - would it be better to have two different EDNS0 options
that carry an IP, or to have one EDNS0 option that carries both an IP and a
'type', and allow multiples of that option in a packet?

-- 
Bob Harold
(Thinking separate options are probably simpler, but wanted to ask.)


>
> It's effectively the same argument about TXT records - there's plenty of
> things that use TXT format, but it's preferred that separate RRTYPEs are
> used to indicate the use case.
>
> Ray
>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email