On 27/03/2017 17:49, Dave Lawrence wrote:
> 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. Let's see how it goes first :) I'm somewhat philosophically opposed to anything that injects client related information such that it's shared between different parties. A large point of my draft is that it's *not* designed to be used that way (but I accept Sara's point that the text around this could be stronger). It's only intended for use within a single network, to allow _already known_ client related information that would otherwise be obscured by an L3 proxy to be carried through to the end server. Ray _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
