Re: [DNSOP] draft-tale-dnsop-edns0-clientid
神明達哉 <jinmei@wide.ad.jp> Thu, 24 May 2018 18:23 UTC
Return-Path: <jinmei.tatuya@gmail.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 BA1D6127444 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 24 May 2018 11:23:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.444
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.444 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.248, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, FROM_EXCESS_BASE64=0.979, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.248, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no 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 06WgA2iDntB5 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 24 May 2018 11:23:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wm0-f49.google.com (mail-wm0-f49.google.com [74.125.82.49]) (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 55D42127867 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 24 May 2018 11:23:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wm0-f49.google.com with SMTP id x12-v6so28524604wmc.0 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 24 May 2018 11:23:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=ns3Ug1AW8cChn3EvxfGcdmMcW4RnpyhPl9BtebvHLyc=; b=nzcOTe01dn8jrRRLrqu4O64T8JvOg8QwxwnvyyisGsFKUbe11QJjjCwRn4lANVI+Qy vqZ4/7RZ0DtNePKcJCiX6yRiau1IBv1cHV4eCThrU9X/OOQokT6WMjB4jyl0t62UfbGY 2pVmoJObC8TRD+Qf4xXa6+4ThKAsSI2T6ZktukW0vjRKHpP03dllv3ko+tMIgH392wWV v9IIUc3WMa4uz7gf2UUhVjhadTyUod3+KfSn+smnHhToN98eQBxgXf6vndsvF8CzEz3g to9F9RlkScBFRXw5RUbWZ2qtefpBmcMTfRdVTU1vE0hT6is7uxLETIIwxH2KobsHCDQ8 MAAA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALKqPwcummU0cV3LQ9GQKPD0i1+FQJp5Dncf0JoMMtsZ+tmXhouIkC6W 4Si6YuN4MiTD0GD4b6zd1tHbJIiccrPVt6XC7Ko=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AB8JxZova5I3H2hI2qVyq1f1/KI7qqgpifdT8Pc6nKZeNyJZGAx3UOIaC8g5c4kY8dycJ6SH1RkbHON61nws6UTOVhg=
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:8693:: with SMTP id l19-v6mr5420502lji.91.1527186221644; Thu, 24 May 2018 11:23:41 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <3EDC5766-14BE-49A6-8F9B-0C29F7A4463B@noware.co.uk>
In-Reply-To: <3EDC5766-14BE-49A6-8F9B-0C29F7A4463B@noware.co.uk>
From: 神明達哉 <jinmei@wide.ad.jp>
Date: Thu, 24 May 2018 11:23:29 -0700
Message-ID: <CAJE_bqexrfcgQBL7OOP9BXdRq=t-WnYgxE-D+epWXG0oCG3t1g@mail.gmail.com>
To: neil.cook@noware.co.uk
Cc: dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/uv_oFgyyGJSQx6CJFpsCl9Vfb54>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] draft-tale-dnsop-edns0-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, 24 May 2018 18:23:45 -0000
At Tue, 22 May 2018 13:50:20 +0100, Neil Cook <neil.cook@noware.co.uk> wrote: > I’m wondering what the status of this draft is? It expired in > September last year. Is there still a desire to get this pushed > through? At least I (and my employer, Infoblox) are interested. The business motivation aside, I've seen several different variants of this option already deployed in the field with different EDNS option codes and conformance to draft-tale-dnsop-edns0-clientid. It would be a pity if we can't provide a unified protocol specification to ensure interoperability. > We (i.e. Open-Xchange/PowerDNS) are really interested in seeing this > become a standard, and personally I’d be happy to take over > authorship and drive it through if necessary, but I’m not exactly > sure why it died - was there lack of consensus for this, or did it > just fall through the cracks? I talked to Dave Lawrence at the London IETF meeting in March regarding the status of the draft. If I understood it correctly there was previously some pushback and that was one main reason why the progress has stalled (Dave may correct me if my understanding is wrong). I certainly see some concerns, most notably privacy implications, but I think these can be addressed through discussion. As for authorship, we might ask Dave. He seemed to still have a motivation in March, but perhaps he's too busy to resume the effort. Hopefully he can respond on this list whether it's okay for some other co-editors to join. I support resuming the effort, and if it's resumed I'm happy to review it. If it's necessary I'm even willing to help edit the draft either as another co-editor or as a serious contributor. -- JINMEI, Tatuya