> On Mar 27, 2017, at 5:49 PM, Dave Lawrence <t...@dd.org> wrote: > > One of the two drafts I wanted to talk about at dnsop today for WG > adoption was "Client ID in Forwarded DNS Queries": > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-tale-dnsop-edns0-clientid/ > > The core idea of this document is to be able to provide > device-specific identification in an EDNS option sent to a > full-service resolver, with the principal motivation to be for > filtering products. It uses an IANA Address Family value to indicate > the format of the identifier that is being sent. One of the design > goals was to avoid creating any new registries. > > This document treads on controversial grounds because of the obvious > privacy implications. It must be noted that both Nominum and Cisco > are already doing this via EDNS options, and so the general idea > confronts some similar issues we've encountered before about whether > to document in-use protocols or let them just continue on with little > to no public documentation. > > 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. > > The one other thing I wanted to mention in the WG is that I tried to > get an EDNS code point assigned through the "Expert Review" process, > which it turns out is very poorly documented for either process or > review criteria. The Expert Reviewer, Olafur Gudmundsson, has > initially denied the request pending feedback from the WG. I'll leave > it to him to state what gave him pause, and to request the feedback he > seeks.
Strictly speaking the draft was never formally submitted via IANA. Rather I was giving David advise on how I would rule if he submitted the draft. As expert I do not have any formal guidelines to tell me how to judge options. My rule after implementing ClientSubnet is “never again” allow complex type. So I told David et. al. that the type requested had 4 sub-types one already allocated, so stop sub-typing and ask for 3 extra types. I did not judge anything about the privacy issues that those 4 types may have, as that is not in scope. It is up to the working group to give advice to either editor or expert to change approach. > > The denial triggered a bit of a philosophical debate between us, but > no matter which side of that debate you line up on it's very clear > that Expert Review really needs documentation to appropriately set > everyone's expectations. I'm hoping that he and I will be > collaborating on a draft. > As Expert I do not want to write the rules for myself :-) I will be happy to comment on any suggested rules/advise. Olafur _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
