Subject: [DNSOP] draft-tale-dnsop-edns0-clientid

From: Neil Cook <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 May 2018 13:50:20 +0100

Hi Folks,

I’m wondering what the status of this draft is? It expired in September last year. Is there still a desire to get this pushed through?

We (i.e. Open-Xchange/PowerDNS) are really interested in seeing this become a standard, and personally I’d be happy to take over authorship and drive it through if necessary, but I’m not exactly sure why it died - was there lack of consensus for this, or did it just fall through the cracks? Currently we support the draft in PowerDNS and also a couple of other de-facto standards for supplying mac address, but we’d also like to see this expanded to provide other types of client ID than just mac address and IP, for example a host name.

Neil Cook

---

From: 神明達哉 <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 May 2018 11:23:29 -0700

At Tue, 22 May 2018 13:50:20 +0100,
Neil Cook <[email-masked]> wrote:

> I’m wondering what the status of this draft is? It expired in
> September last year. Is there still a desire to get this pushed
> through?

At least I (and my employer, Infoblox) are interested.  The business
motivation aside, I've seen several different variants of this option
already deployed in the field with different EDNS option codes and
conformance to draft-tale-dnsop-edns0-clientid.  It would be a pity
if we can't provide a unified protocol specification to ensure
interoperability.

> We (i.e. Open-Xchange/PowerDNS) are really interested in seeing this
> become a standard, and personally I’d be happy to take over
> authorship and drive it through if necessary, but I’m not exactly
> sure why it died - was there lack of consensus for this, or did it
> just fall through the cracks?

I talked to Dave Lawrence at the London IETF meeting in March
regarding the status of the draft.  If I understood it correctly there
was previously some pushback and that was one main reason why the
progress has stalled (Dave may correct me if my understanding is
wrong).  I certainly see some concerns, most notably privacy
implications, but I think these can be addressed through discussion.

As for authorship, we might ask Dave.  He seemed to still have a
motivation in March, but perhaps he's too busy to resume the effort.
Hopefully he can respond on this list whether it's okay for some other
co-editors to join.

I support resuming the effort, and if it's resumed I'm happy to review
it.  If it's necessary I'm even willing to help edit the draft either
as another co-editor or as a serious contributor.

--
JINMEI, Tatuya