we've got two agencies who do DNS, and probably have > 20% worldwide eyeball share in DNS (I don't know, thats a guesstimate) now doing edns0_client_subnet albiet with whitelist, so its a permit-list, but its functionally 'there'
we've got running code in bind. and no doubt other product. wouldn't it be passing strange for the premier body which determines DNS standards to decide to drop this one when we have massive widescale adoption, a clear use-case, and running code? Its probably already more widely deployed than IPv6... -G On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 4:51 PM, Mark Delany <f...@november.emu.st> wrote: > On 24Dec14, Mark Delany allegedly wrote: > > > The draft is available here: > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-vandergaast-dnsop-edns-client-subnet/ > > > > a) 6.2 - Intent of SCOPE NETMASK > > > > "In both cases, the value of the SCOPE NETMASK in the reply has strong > > implications with regard to how the reply will be cached" > > > > I wonder whether SCOPE NETMASK should have a bigger impact beyond how > > the reply is cached? > > Tap tap tap. Is this thing turned on? > > I think 3-4 people made some well-considered feedback on this draft, > but there has been zero discussion or author feedback for some six > weeks now. > > Does that mean there is insufficient interest in progressing this draft? > > I ask because in my dayjob we've been recently approached by some > large eyeball providers who are now willing to invest in upgrading > their resolver infrastructure to support client-subnet now that they > see the benefits. > > It'd be a pity if this died on the vine just as others are starting to > come around to the idea. > > > Mark. > > _______________________________________________ > DNSOP mailing list > DNSOP@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop > >
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
