< draft-bellis-dnsop-edns-tags-00.txt		draft-bellis-dnsop-edns-tags-01.txt >
	DNSOP Working Group R. Bellis		DNSOP Working Group R. Bellis
	Internet-Draft A. Clegg		Internet-Draft A. Clegg
	Intended status: Standards Track ISC		Intended status: Standards Track ISC
	Expires: September 5, 2019 March 04, 2019		Expires: September 26, 2019 P. van Dijk
			PowerDNS
			March 25, 2019
	DNS EDNS Tags		DNS EDNS Tags
	draft-bellis-dnsop-edns-tags-00		draft-bellis-dnsop-edns-tags-01
	Abstract		Abstract
	This document describes EDNS Tags, a mechanism by which DNS clients		This document describes EDNS Tags, a mechanism by which DNS clients
	and servers can transmit an opaque data field which has no defined		and servers can transmit an opaque data field which has no defined
	semantic meaning other than as previously agreed between the client		semantic meaning other than as previously agreed between the client
	and server.		and server.
	Status of This Memo		Status of This Memo
	skipping to change at page 1, line 33 ¶		skipping to change at page 1, line 35 ¶
	Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering		Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
	Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute		Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
	working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-		working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
	Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.		Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
	Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months		Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
	and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any		and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
	time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference		time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
	material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."		material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
	This Internet-Draft will expire on September 5, 2019.		This Internet-Draft will expire on September 26, 2019.
	Copyright Notice		Copyright Notice
	Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the		Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
	document authors. All rights reserved.		document authors. All rights reserved.
	This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal		This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
	Provisions Relating to IETF Documents		Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
	(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of		(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
	publication of this document. Please review these documents		publication of this document. Please review these documents
	carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect		carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
	to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must		to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
	include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of		include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
	the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as		the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
	described in the Simplified BSD License.		described in the Simplified BSD License.
	Table of Contents		Table of Contents
	1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2		1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
	2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2		2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
	3. Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2		3. Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
	3.1. Packet Validation Rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3		3.1. Packet Validation Rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
	3.2. Error Handling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3		3.2. Error Handling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
	3.3. Wire Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3		3.3. Wire Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
	3.3.1. EDNS-Client-Tag . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3		3.3.1. EDNS-Client-Tag . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
	3.3.2. EDNS-Server-Tag . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4		3.3.2. EDNS-Server-Tag . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
	4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4		4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
	5. Implementation status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4		5. Implementation status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
	6. Privacy Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5		6. Privacy Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
	7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5		7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
	8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5		8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
	9. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5		9. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
	Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6		Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
	1. Introduction		1. Introduction
	This document describes EDNS Tags, a mechanism by which DNS clients		This document describes EDNS Tags, a mechanism by which DNS clients
	and servers [RFC1034] can transmit an opaque data field which has no		and servers [RFC1034] can transmit an opaque data field which has no
	skipping to change at page 2, line 50 ¶		skipping to change at page 3, line 9 ¶
	The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",		The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
	"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and		"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
	"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP		"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
	14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all		14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
	capitals, as shown here.		capitals, as shown here.
	3. Description		3. Description
	The values of the individual bits within a tag are not defined to		The values of the individual bits within a tag are not defined to
	have any semantic meaning in this specification. Their		have any semantic meaning in this specification. Their
	interpretation is defined entirely by bi-lateral agreement between		interpretation is defined entirely by out-of-band bilateral agreement
	client and server operators. The definitions for EDNS-Client-Tag and		between client and server operators.
	EDNS-Server-Tag values MAY be different.
	Operators are free to partition the bits within that field as they		Operators are free to partition the bits within that field as they
	see fit; for example it could be used to transmit up to 16 separate		see fit; for example it could be used to transmit up to 16 separate
	boolean flags, or perhaps to transmit a 10 bit numeric value combined		boolean flags, or perhaps to transmit a 10 bit numeric value combined
	a 2 bit value and four boolean flags.		a 2 bit value and four boolean flags.
			The intended mode of operation is that the value of a bit (or range
			of bits) could be tested in access control lists or any other such
			policy control mechanism.
	Possible use cases for EDNS-Client-Tags include:		Possible use cases for EDNS-Client-Tags include:
	o client-controlled selection of a DNS-based security filter		o client-controlled selection of a DNS-based security filter
	o marking a packet passing through a proxy with transport-related		o marking a packet passing through a proxy with transport-related
	information		information
	Use cases for EDNS-Server-Tags are still to be determined. The		Use cases for EDNS-Server-Tags are still to be determined. The
	option is specified here for symmetry and in anticipation of new use		option is specified here for symmetry and in anticipation of new use
	cases being discovered.		cases being discovered. The semantic definitions for EDNS-Client-Tag
			and EDNS-Server-Tag values MAY be different; they need not be
			symmetrical.
	3.1. Packet Validation Rules		3.1. Packet Validation Rules
	The OPT RR in a DNS request packet (QR = 0) MUST NOT contain an EDNS-		The OPT RR in a DNS request packet (QR = 0) MUST NOT contain an EDNS-
	Server-Tag option. A request packet MUST NOT contain more than one		Server-Tag option. A request packet MUST NOT contain more than one
	EDNS-Client-Tag option.		EDNS-Client-Tag option.
	The OPT RR in a DNS response packet (QR = 1) MUST NOT contain an		The OPT RR in a DNS response packet (QR = 1) MUST NOT contain an
	EDNS-Client-Tag option. A response packet MUST NOT contain more than		EDNS-Client-Tag option. A response packet MUST NOT contain more than
	one EDNS-Server-Tag option.		one EDNS-Server-Tag option.
	skipping to change at page 4, line 42 ¶		skipping to change at page 5, line 5 ¶
	OPTION-LENGTH: Size (in octets) of OPTION-DATA. MUST be 2.		OPTION-LENGTH: Size (in octets) of OPTION-DATA. MUST be 2.
	SERVER-TAG-DATA: The tag field sent from server to client.		SERVER-TAG-DATA: The tag field sent from server to client.
	4. Security Considerations		4. Security Considerations
	Client tags are under the control of the client software and as such		Client tags are under the control of the client software and as such
	(and in the absence of any other mechanism to authenticate the		(and in the absence of any other mechanism to authenticate the
	client's identity) this mechanism is not appropriate for applications		client's identity) this mechanism is not appropriate for applications
	where the DNS server operator wishes to contractually differentiate		where the DNS server operator wishes to contractually differentiate
	service based on the presence (or absence) of any particular tag.		service based on the interpretation of the tag's value.
	5. Implementation status		5. Implementation status
	TBC.		TBC.
	6. Privacy Considerations		6. Privacy Considerations
	Tags are opaque fields that encode only a limited amount of		Tags are opaque fields that encode only a limited amount of
	information. The size of the data field in this specification is		information. The size of the data field in this specification is
	chosen to offer a compromise between offering sufficient content to		chosen to offer a compromise between offering sufficient content to
	skipping to change at line 251 ¶		skipping to change at page 6, line 28 ¶
	Email: ray@isc.org		Email: ray@isc.org
	Alan Clegg		Alan Clegg
	Internet Systems Consortium, Inc.		Internet Systems Consortium, Inc.
	950 Charter Street		950 Charter Street
	Redwood City CA 94063		Redwood City CA 94063
	USA		USA
	Phone: +1 650 423 1200		Phone: +1 650 423 1200
	Email: aclegg@isc.org		Email: aclegg@isc.org
			Peter van Dijk
			PowerDNS.COM B.V.
			Den Haag
			The Netherlands
			Email: peter.van.dijk@powerdns.com
End of changes. 11 change blocks.
	12 lines changed or deleted		19 lines changed or added
This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/