Re: [dbound] [DNSOP] Over on the dbound list: draft-dcrocker-dns-perimeter-00

Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net> Thu, 04 April 2019 17:29 UTC

Return-Path: <dhc@dcrocker.net>
X-Original-To: dbound@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dbound@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A3CC21200E3 for <dbound@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Apr 2019 10:29:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=dcrocker.net
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ase91Ah98N4A for <dbound@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Apr 2019 10:29:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from simon.songbird.com (simon.songbird.com [72.52.113.5]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8ABFC12027D for <dbound@ietf.org>; Thu, 4 Apr 2019 10:29:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.85] (108-226-162-63.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net [108.226.162.63]) (authenticated bits=0) by simon.songbird.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/Debian-4.1ubuntu1.1) with ESMTP id x34HUjEk014294 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Thu, 4 Apr 2019 10:30:45 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=dcrocker.net; s=default; t=1554399046; bh=oP/ztI2FUZ9ygmQIJ/gIYQizeGGxvcgDsW7FRiqic1Q=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Reply-To:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=mRd2eMoxg+5osKiFooJNGDxRLkT3v0agLdk4E9Cnk9XsPQM5PDID2JVbUOvw/cx3d opC4WhfJ0smfsrtmWr6kfv89kZt9tTyrCiWrPaXFWEAi6HX/b7UsLPFXS1DXr+kE7j jt172XH7gL7rmlDNsWbuBrLpOCVN6cbD6PLmkJ3w=
To: Bob Harold <rharolde@umich.edu>
Cc: dbound@ietf.org
References: <03202426-5fa7-de6a-688d-491bde7402a8@dcrocker.net> <CA+nkc8BL2ArJNxWE8QdRf_76Wvt_85fZmzV92diN7qENXP6jvg@mail.gmail.com> <17bd278f-17b4-7b77-f209-253a290cfde7@dcrocker.net> <CA+nkc8B7uU_VyqGEdnUGTdiyWr2m4qsgi1LNo3T8hL-bZT2ONg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net>
Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
Message-ID: <3578e46a-4144-3b82-692c-7b358ad2d4fb@dcrocker.net>
Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2019 10:28:56 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.6.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CA+nkc8B7uU_VyqGEdnUGTdiyWr2m4qsgi1LNo3T8hL-bZT2ONg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dbound/SamCVL05o_tqKYSKINWR5xOYDRU>
Subject: Re: [dbound] [DNSOP] Over on the dbound list: draft-dcrocker-dns-perimeter-00
X-BeenThere: dbound@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: DNS tree bounds <dbound.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dbound>, <mailto:dbound-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dbound/>
List-Post: <mailto:dbound@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dbound-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dbound>, <mailto:dbound-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2019 17:29:16 -0000

On 4/4/2019 9:57 AM, Bob Harold wrote:
>     And my having to write this response makes me suspect there's some
>     benefit in adding an end-begin shorthand to the specification, to
>     reduce
>     the verbosity and permit a single record to declares Perimeters both
>     above and below the node.  It's purpose would be for Perimeter
>     hierarchy
>     have a one-name level, such as your example (and I suspect would be a
>     common use.)
> 
> Agreed.

OK.

Since adding constructs makes a spec and its implementation more 
complicated,(*) I'll ask the group whether the simplicity of having just 
'begin' and 'end' for marking Perimeters -- at the expense of the 
verbosity of extra records -- is preferred or whether adding a third 
choice, as a contraction, such as "endbegin", is preferred so there 
would be only one record.

(For completeness:  The 'part' construct doesn't define a Perimeter, so 
it doesn't come into this issue.)



>     Cool.  Subset of branches.
> 
>       > a.example.
>       > b.a.example.
>       > c.a.example.
>       > d.a.example.
>       > ...
>       > z.a.example.
>         \
>          ._perim TXT begin <schema>
> 
>     would clearly work.
> 
>     If there were a need to instead have a.example make the declaration, I
>     don't see an obvious answer.
> 
> 
> This is my concern.
> 
>     My first thought is for the Scheme to have a sub-notation, to indicate
>     that the presence of the Perimeter is not for all branches, such as by
>     having it list the children links it applies to.  But that's not
>     feeling
>     terribly satisfactory.
> 
> 
> Not great, but probably required.  Could the RFC include a note about 
> this possible issue?

Sure.  But I'll also ask for suggestions to see whether we can have 
Perimeter handle this sufficiently to satisfy folk.

I'm taking the open question as:

      How should DNS Perimeter Overlay provide for a parent node to 
specify that a subordinate Perimeter applies only to a subset of its 
subordinate links?

It might help to move this from the abstract to the concrete if we 
develop a few real-world examples we'd like to cover.  I don't have any 
to suggest but hope others do.


d/

(*) I tend to think of additions as having disproportionate effects, 
best treated as exponential.  So adding even one item to a small list of 
features is worth worrying about.

-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net