Re: [DNSOP] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-dnsop-edns-client-subnet

Dear Colleagues, This Working Group Last Call has concluded, and we've seen consensus support to send the document on to the IESG. Thanks to everyone who spent their time and effort on reviews and discussion, and to the authors for their careful attention to addressing the comments. Suzanne &

Re: [DNSOP] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-dnsop-edns-client-subnet

At Mon, 5 Oct 2015 20:28:34 -0400, Dave Lawrence wrote: > > as you're at least suggesting some additional text (thanks for that, > > but that does not fully address my points), I'd offer mine: [...] > This seems basically fine with me, and I'll consult with the other > authors and the chairs. Ok

Re: [DNSOP] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-dnsop-edns-client-subnet

Jinmei writes: > I interpret this as the answer to my question is "we expect newer > implementations are developed based on this specification". And we're > going to publish it even if we know there are several technical flaws." > Our mileage may vary about how "minor" they are, and I myself would

Re: [DNSOP] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-dnsop-edns-client-subnet

At Sun, 4 Oct 2015 11:49:22 -0400, Dave Lawrence wrote: > > It would be nicer if it can be clarified before advancing > > it: are we expecting newer implementations are developed based on this > > specification, or is this document literally for describing the > > current practice for the record

Re: [DNSOP] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-dnsop-edns-client-subnet

Admin note: the WGLC has concluded. Thanks everyone for your comments, and the authors for addressing them. We'll be reviewing all of the correspondence with the authors and have an official followup soon on moving this draft forward. Suzanne & Tim ___

Re: [DNSOP] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-dnsop-edns-client-subnet

Thank you, Jinmei, for your thoughtful feedback. Jinmei writes: > It would be nicer if it can be clarified before advancing > it: are we expecting newer implementations are developed based on this > specification, or is this document literally for describing the > current practice for the record (

Re: [DNSOP] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-dnsop-edns-client-subnet

At Wed, 30 Sep 2015 16:32:07 -0400, "Joe Abley" wrote: > > I'm not necessarily opposed to advancing it, but I have one high level > > question. It would be nicer if it can be clarified before advancing > > it: are we expecting newer implementations are developed based on this > > specification,

Re: [DNSOP] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-dnsop-edns-client-subnet

On 30 Sep 2015, at 14:48, 神明達哉 wrote: On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 9:05 AM, Suzanne Woolf wrote: This begins the working group last call for draft-ietf-dnsop-edns-client-subnet, "Client Subnet in DNS Queries.” The document has gotten significant feedback and the editors have worked hard to doc

Re: [DNSOP] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-dnsop-edns-client-subnet

On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 11:48:47AM -0400, dagon wrote: > I'm still digesting the rest of the document, and running tests. It's > well written, and helpfully annotated. I'm just a bit slow in this > process. "As long as I have you on the phone..." I have one more comment: 3) Towards ECS Blackl

Re: [DNSOP] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-dnsop-edns-client-subnet

On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 9:05 AM, Suzanne Woolf wrote: > This begins the working group last call for > draft-ietf-dnsop-edns-client-subnet, "Client Subnet in DNS Queries.” The > document has gotten significant feedback and the editors have worked hard to > document current use of the client-subnet

Re: [DNSOP] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-dnsop-edns-client-subnet

On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 04:26:38PM -0400, Dave Lawrence wrote: > David Dagon writes: > > I have some concerns, which I describe below. [...] > > David, > > Thank you very much for your thoughtful comments. Broadly speaking, I > very much agree with the bulk of them. Yet my current reaction is n

Re: [DNSOP] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-dnsop-edns-client-subnet

David Dagon writes: > I have some concerns, which I describe below. [...] David, Thank you very much for your thoughtful comments. Broadly speaking, I very much agree with the bulk of them. Yet my current reaction is not to make any more alterations to the existing document. It describes the d

Re: [DNSOP] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-dnsop-edns-client-subnet

On 23 September 2015 at 21:40, Dave Lawrence wrote: > Ted Lemon writes: >> It would be helpful if the authors could explain why the REFUSED >> response is being used here. > > Not to be glib, but because that's what Wilmer originally specified. > That's thus what got implemented by the existing im

Re: [DNSOP] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-dnsop-edns-client-subnet

On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 12:05:58PM -0400, Suzanne Woolf wrote: > The current version is at: > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-edns-client-subnet/ > I have some concerns, which I describe below. I've attempte

Re: [DNSOP] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-dnsop-edns-client-subnet

On Sep 24, 2015, at 8:52 AM, John Dickinson wrote: > I agree, when I last read this I had the IESG Note in my head (and I already > knew that this was just documenting existing deployments). Looking again, I > suggest that the IESG Note be moved to the main text and not be removed prior > to pu

Re: [DNSOP] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-dnsop-edns-client-subnet

John Dickinson writes: > I suggest that the IESG Note be moved to the main text and not be > removed prior to publication. I agree, and am making some edits today for review by the co-authors. ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/m

Re: [DNSOP] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-dnsop-edns-client-subnet

On 24 Sep 2015, at 13:42, Ted Lemon wrote: > On Sep 23, 2015, at 4:40 PM, Dave Lawrence wrote: >> Ted Lemon writes: >>> It would be helpful if the authors could explain why the REFUSED >>> response is being used here. >> >> Not to be glib, but because that's what Wilmer originally specified. >> T

Re: [DNSOP] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-dnsop-edns-client-subnet

On Sep 23, 2015, at 4:40 PM, Dave Lawrence wrote: > Ted Lemon writes: >> It would be helpful if the authors could explain why the REFUSED >> response is being used here. > > Not to be glib, but because that's what Wilmer originally specified. > That's thus what got implemented by the existing imp

Re: [DNSOP] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-dnsop-edns-client-subnet

Ted Lemon writes: > It would be helpful if the authors could explain why the REFUSED > response is being used here. Not to be glib, but because that's what Wilmer originally specified. That's thus what got implemented by the existing implementations (and there are more than you'd likely imagine, t

Re: [DNSOP] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-dnsop-edns-client-subnet

Greetings. I have reviewed the latest version of this document and think that it ready for publication as an Informational RFC. It covers more of the relevant related topics than the draft that the WG adopted, and is clearer in many places. I'm not an implementer so I can't say whether or not i

Re: [DNSOP] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-dnsop-edns-client-subnet

It would be helpful if the authors could explain why the REFUSED response is being used here. Realizing that the current version of the document is intended to document existing practice, nevertheless, strongly recommending the use of REFUSED here is a bad idea, as can be seen from the advice

Re: [DNSOP] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-dnsop-edns-client-subnet

I have read the draft. I am collecting information carried in EDNS0 client_subnet and have been running modified authoritative state server-side in order to tickle it out, and I am happy with what I see. It ain't perfect but its pretty good. I like that the draft is reasonably clear about the know