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

Ray Bellis <> Tue, 28 March 2017 16:38 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C59DA128D40 for <>; Tue, 28 Mar 2017 09:38:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id e40H92jIIX-T for <>; Tue, 28 Mar 2017 09:38:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 483A2129446 for <>; Tue, 28 Mar 2017 09:38:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([]:62101) by ([]:465) with esmtpsa ( (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) id 1csu8i-0006v0-Jg (Exim 4.72) for (return-path <>); Tue, 28 Mar 2017 17:38:36 +0100
References: <>
From: Ray Bellis <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2017 11:38:37 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.12; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] draft-tale-dnsop-edns-clientid
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2017 16:38:44 -0000

On 27/03/2017 17:49, Dave Lawrence wrote:

> As Sara commented on Ray's draft that proposes a very similar option,
> draft-bellis-dnsop-xpf, this sort of thing clearly needs a close look
> at privacy, and I whole-heartedly agree.  I've already been directly
> poking privacy-concerned individuals for feedback.
> Speaking of Ray's draft, our proposal is able to handle his use case
> but unfortunately our use cases are not achievable in his.  I'd
> welcome joining up.

Let's see how it goes first :)

I'm somewhat philosophically opposed to anything that injects client
related information such that it's shared between different parties.

A large point of my draft is that it's *not* designed to be used that
way (but I accept Sara's point that the text around this could be stronger).

It's only intended for use within a single network, to allow _already
known_ client related information that would otherwise be obscured by an
L3 proxy to be carried through to the end server.