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

Ray Bellis <ray@bellis.me.uk> Tue, 05 March 2019 10:57 UTC

Return-Path: <ray@bellis.me.uk>
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 3EA4613106E for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Mar 2019 02:57:50 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=portfast.net
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 rQIqv_MPqHbz for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Mar 2019 02:57:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.portfast.net (mail.portfast.net [IPv6:2a03:9800:20:1::2]) (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 A102612941A for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 5 Mar 2019 02:57:47 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=portfast.net; s=dkim; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:In-Reply-To: MIME-Version:Date:Message-ID:From:References:Cc:To:Subject:Sender:Reply-To: Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender: Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=uScMXZf6eWYfRq5EwJFq55YB7zmlE2pkQa0lPDpe33E=; b=RfjgzipfKcDFLBDBuAK7j5P4Gl 55bq8CCrtnaHUNZF58ECFICMXx9Mw2dbWH26mFSRlpkoP54V5iAcmP5oQRt1TrPNCmXDWOHu0reTc //pGGDlcXTRIipdRqXtHCUzqB9PxV+rLR8f6mROgsfizmhVql5Md7D2X6ZLgOrw11wF0=;
Received: from [88.212.170.147] (port=65112 helo=Rays-MacBook-Pro.local) by mail.portfast.net ([188.246.200.9]:465) with esmtpsa (fixed_plain:ray@bellis.me.uk) (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) id 1h17lZ-0003uY-Ec (Exim 4.89) (return-path <ray@bellis.me.uk>); Tue, 05 Mar 2019 10:57:45 +0000
To: Dick Franks <rwfranks@acm.org>
Cc: IETF DNSOP WG <dnsop@ietf.org>
References: <155171606493.5281.3957934874516100450.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <5c3cc3f9-2225-9077-fb9e-0fb940bd1c1b@isc.org> <accf01be-9813-c708-073e-e5f22948ccbc@time-travellers.org> <a3dd345a-3be5-9a40-e3e6-f6a29d04fcd4@bellis.me.uk> <CAKW6Ri6AnhKTm4LwERjnfArPWUQeCmwZ5SBsdWp9Y6amXuWLJA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Ray Bellis <ray@bellis.me.uk>
Message-ID: <c465617a-25df-bf11-8cde-beb821ddb8a0@bellis.me.uk>
Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2019 10:57:44 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.5.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAKW6Ri6AnhKTm4LwERjnfArPWUQeCmwZ5SBsdWp9Y6amXuWLJA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-GB
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/xbfa7czPNCOf96WgB_w89f5JsLw>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Fwd: 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: Tue, 05 Mar 2019 10:57:50 -0000


On 05/03/2019 10:54, Dick Franks wrote:

> But that is not the case here. Even if the mechanism were to become
> standardised and ubiquitous, each instance would be interoperable
> only between two specific consenting parties. IMHO this falls into
> the "local use" category.

I was talking interoperable with respect to implementations, not the
specific values of the tags chosen between a pair of systems.

(Just as BGP communities only have meaning between peers)

Ray