Re: [dns-privacy] [DNSOP] [core] WGA call for draft-lenders-dns-over-coap

[Martine Sophie Lenders <[e-mail]>]

Hi!

Am 21.09.22 um 21:31 schrieb Ben Schwartz:
> Preparing a separate document on compact DNS seems like a fine start to me.

We just published Version -01 of the draft [1]. The most significant 
change in regard to this discussion is that Section 5.1 was now moved to 
its own draft [2]. We are happy to discuss this, e.g., in the DNSOP WG 
meeting or F2F during a break at IETF 115, if the WG meeting agenda does 
not allow for this anymore.

The full listing of changes to the DoC draft can be found in Appendix A 
of [1].

Cheers
Martine

[1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-core-dns-over-coap/01/
[2] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-lenders-dns-cns/

> 
> On Wed, Sep 21, 2022 at 4:32 AM Martine Sophie Lenders 
> <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> 
>     Hi Ben, Hi Carsten,
> 
>     thanks for your suggestions, Ben! It seems a good idea to clarify
>     options for compactification of DNS messages in a separate document,
>     since the compactification is indeed not bound to CoAP. We will
>     prepare such a draft until the cut-off for IETF 115, so we can
>     discuss whether we keep or remove Section 5.1 at the IETF meeting in
>     London. Would that work for you?
> 
>     I tend to agree with Carsten. At least with the current wording (or
>     the proposed), the restatements may lead to confusion, but some
>     guidelines for the constrained use case should IMHO be part of the
>     document, even if only in reference to the new document proposed.
> 
>     Best
>     Martine
> 
>     Am 20.09.22 um 18:17 schrieb Carsten Bormann:
>>     I think we are falling into the restatement antipattern.
>>
>>     This antipattern happens when documents restate mandates from
>>     their references, invariably creating confusion if this is just a
>>     restatement or actually new normative text that replaces or
>>     updates text from the dependency. Don’t do that.
>>
>>     Examples can be put into their own section and clearly marked as
>>     such.
>>
>>     Grüße, Carsten
>>
>>     Sent from mobile, sorry for terse
>>
>>>     On 20. Sep 2022, at 17:12, Ben Schwartz
>>>     <bemasc=[e-mail]>
>>>     <mailto:bemasc=[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>
>>>     
>>>     Martine,
>>>
>>>     Thanks for the proposed updated text regarding CNAMEs.  I agree
>>>     that it is an improvement, but I still think it would be better
>>>     to omit entirely.  By writing that implementations SHOULD follow
>>>     RFC 1034, you imply that they are permitted not to, which seems
>>>     objectionable.  I think it would be much clearer to simply say
>>>     that use of DoC does not alter the DNS message contents.
>>>
>>>     I feel similarly about the Additional section.  If you think that
>>>     it would be useful to deviate from ordinary practices regarding
>>>     the Additional section, I think this should be in a separate
>>>     draft on compact DNS responses, not coupled to DoC.  For example,
>>>     such compactification might be even more relevant to UDP Do53
>>>     than to DoC.
>>>
>>>     --Ben
>>>
>>>     On Mon, Sep 19, 2022 at 7:30 AM Martine Sophie Lenders
>>>     <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>>
>>>         Hi,
>>>
>>>         Sorry for the late reply, I was away from any keyboard for
>>>         the past two weeks.
>>>
>>>         I think there might be a misunderstanding regarding the CNAME
>>>         behavior, due to some poor wording in our draft: The CNAMEs
>>>         should, of course, only be resolved in such a way, if the
>>>         queried record was an A or AAAA record. This does not, to my
>>>         understanding, contradict the behavior described for CNAMEs
>>>         in RFC 1034. We propose a different wording for the first
>>>         sentence in 5.1 to prevent such misunderstandings in the future:
>>>
>>>             In the case of CNAME records in a DNS response to an A or
>>>         AAAA record query, a DoC server SHOULD follow common DNS
>>>         resolver behavior [RFC1034
>>>         <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-core-dns-over-coap-00.html#RFC1034>] by resolving a CNAME until the originally requested resource record type is reached.
>>>
>>>         Regarding the population of the additional section, we also
>>>         follow recommendations in RFC 1034, to only include records
>>>         useful to the client. We deem this particularly noteworthy
>>>         when it comes to DNS, as from our analysis of DNS traffic,
>>>         responses can become quite large due to an abundance of
>>>         records in the Additional section. With the message size
>>>         constraints in LLNs, it might thus be necessary to prune the
>>>         DNS message for records actually useful to the querying DoC
>>>         client.
>>>
>>>         Lastly, mind, that, at least in our model for DoC, a DoC
>>>         client does not further distribute the information it
>>>         gathered via DoC.
>>>
>>>         Regards
>>>         Martine
>>>
>>>         Am 06.09.22 um 17:06 schrieb Ben Schwartz:
>>>>         Some further notes on this draft.
>>>>
>>>>         Section 5.1 says that a DoC server "SHOULD" follow CNAMEs. 
>>>>         This is a misunderstanding of the nature of DNS transports. 
>>>>         DoC is a DNS transport, like DoT and DoH.  The choice of
>>>>         transport is independent of the DNS server's answering
>>>>         behavior, which must not be modified by the transport. 
>>>>         Indeed, DPRIVE is now chartered to enable the use of
>>>>         alternate transports for recursive-to-authoritative queries
>>>>         for which CNAME following has entirely different rules. 
>>>>         This is possible precisely because the choice of transport
>>>>         does not alter the logical DNS contents.
>>>>
>>>>         Section 5.1 also proposes that the population of the
>>>>         Additional section might follow different logic when using DoC.
>>>>
>>>>         Modifying the logical DNS behavior would create a wide range
>>>>         of exciting and unpredictable compatibility issues when
>>>>         trying to use a new transport.  I urge the authors to delete
>>>>         Section 5.1, which would resolve this problem.  The draft
>>>>         could instead note that the DNS queries and responses are
>>>>         not modified when using DoC, except under private
>>>>         arrangement between the client and server.
>>>>
>>>>         On Fri, Sep 2, 2022 at 12:20 PM Jaime Jiménez <[e-mail]
>>>>         <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>             Dear CoRE WG,
>>>>
>>>>             Thanks to the authors and the reviewers that provided
>>>>             comments on the list for this draft. Given the in-room
>>>>             support and the list discussion during the WGA the
>>>>             chairs believe that there is sufficient support for the
>>>>             adoption of this document in CoRE.
>>>>
>>>>             The authors are advised to resubmit the
>>>>             draft-core-dns-over-coap and to set up a document repo
>>>>             under the CoRE Github organization at
>>>>             https://github.com/core-wg <https://github.com/core-wg>
>>>>
>>>>             BR,
>>>>
>>>>             Jaime Jiménez on behalf of the CoRE chairs.
>>>>
>>>>             On 15.8.2022 11.26, Jaime Jiménez wrote:
>>>>>             Dear CoRE WG,
>>>>>
>>>>>             We would like to start the call for adoption on draft-lenders-dns-over-coap.
>>>>>             The draft defines a protocol for sending DNS messages over secure CoAP (DTLS and/or OSCORE). The draft was discussed during IETF114 and on IETF113 and was well-received by the group.
>>>>>
>>>>>             https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-lenders-dns-over-coap/  <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-lenders-dns-over-coap/>  
>>>>>
>>>>>             During the last IETF meeting there were no objections for adoption so we confirm this now on the mailing list. Please let us know if you support adopting this draft. As many people will still be on vacation, we the WGA call will last a couple of weeks, ending the/1st of September/.
>>>>>
>>>>>             Note that DNSOP and DPRIVE are in the loop as the draft is relevant for their working groups too.
>>>>>
>>>>>             BR,
>>>>>             -- 
>>>>>             Jaime Jiménez
>>>>>
>>>>>             _______________________________________________
>>>>>             core mailing list
>>>>>             [e-mail]  <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>>>             https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/core  <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/core>
>>>>
>>>>             -- 
>>>>             Jaime Jiménez
>>>>
>>>>             _______________________________________________
>>>>             DNSOP mailing list
>>>>             [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>>             https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
>>>>             <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>         _______________________________________________
>>>>         core mailing list
>>>>         [e-mail]  <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>>         https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/core  <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/core>
>>>
> 
>     ____ _______________________________________________
>     DNSOP mailing list
>     [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
>     <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop>
>