On 5/6/14, 1:18 PM, Joe Abley wrote:
Hi all,
I'm seeing increasing discussion about edns-client-subnet (most recently
documented, I think, in the expired document
draft-vandergaast-edns-client-subnet-02), both in commercial and open source
venues (there's an active thread on the unbound-users mailing list right now,
for example).
Google DNS supports edns-client-subnet, which by recent GIH+GGM count means
10%+ of all client queries now trigger queries to authority servers with that
option included.
On the authority side, support for this option has a potential impact on query
load. On the recursive side, support for this option has a potential impact on
cache size.
With multiple implementations, there are interop issues.
If I recall the history of draft-vandergaast-edns-client-subnet-02, it stalled
because various persuasive people in IETF working groups reacted to the vomity
taste it left in their mouths (by which I refer to the concept, not the quality
of the documentation). I may well have been one of them.
However, I now feel that regardless of any vomity taste, what we are looking at
is a proposal that has been implemented in multiple code bases (and hence must
interoperate), has seen significant deployment and the use of which has
operational consequences. Both the protocol changes and the impact on
operations should be documented.
I think dnsop should pick up some or all of this work. I think not picking up
this work will result in implementation and operational problems. (I am
reminded of the consequences of not standardising NAT, for example.)
I would be happy to contribute reviews and/or text.
Thoughts?
Joe,
The Chairs have been discussing this as recently as yesterday, with the
advent of what appears to be the acceptance of our new charter. We were
going to reach out and restart that discussion.
Our initial thought was that with all the EDNS extensions that once they
are given their IANA codepoint, any documentation that can be provided
is an added bonus. We were thinking that these would be relatively
easy to move these along as 'Informational' level and not 'Standards
Track'. We're wondering what the working group thinks.
The Chairs were waiting to bring this once some of the older work has
moved through our system, to not overwhelm the members.
(This also includes Paul's drafts which also need a more formal
conversation).
tim
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
