Subject: [DNSOP] Seeking edns-client-subnet implementers

From: David C Lawrence <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2015 14:44:34 -0400

At IETF this week it was decided to refocus the effort on the
edns-client-subnet draft on only documenting the existing behaviour of
deployed implementations.

To clarify some areas that were un/under-specified I am looking for
implementers of both recursive and authoritative servers at the
following "Participants" companies listed at
http://www.afasterinternet.com/participants.htm
namely:

  * EdgeCast
  * CDNetworks
  * BitGravity
  * Comodo
  * Incapsula
  * Tencent
  * DNSPod
  * Amazon / AWS

I've got contacts for others on the list already.

If you have an implementation but are not on that Participants page I
would like to hear from you too.

Apologies for those of you who got double copies of this message
because of the two lists that I've sent it to.

Thank you.

---

From: "Mark Delany" <[email-masked]>
Date: 26 Mar 2015 19:18:27 +0000

> deployed implementations.

That's disappointing and somewhat at odds with the theme of the
on-list discussions since the last draft was posted. Oh well.

> implementers of both recursive and authoritative servers at the

Given that the major public caches have all adopted a whitelist
approach to participating auths, one presumes that their whitelists
represent all deployed implementations.

Mark.

---

From: Dave Lawrence <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2015 15:44:52 -0400

> on-list discussions since the last draft was posted. Oh well.

I had meant to comment on this aspect in my message to dnsop;
apologies for not doing so.  The second half of this piece of news is
that we will be advancing a new draft to work on improving the
protocol based on operational experience, and will certainly be
incorporating previous feedback.

> represent all deployed implementations.

Yes, in a sense.  Not in a way that makes it easy for me to identify
which implementations are which and who to talk to about them,
unfortunately.

---

From: Paul Ebersman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2015 15:34:00 -0500

tale> At IETF this week it was decided to refocus the effort on the
tale> edns-client-subnet draft on only documenting the existing
tale> behaviour of deployed implementations.

f4t> That's disappointing and somewhat at odds with the theme of the
f4t> on-list discussions since the last draft was posted. Oh well.

Dave also replied but a couple of us have "volunteered" to spin a new
draft that lists the issues with the existing implementations and design
and proposes a new design based on comments and lessons learned from the
early implementers.

It seemed cleaner to use the current draft to simply document current
state of the art and have a new document that works on enhancements.