[dnsext] DNS RRTYPEs for ILNP review - Comments period end July 5th
Roy Arends <roy@nominet.org.uk> Thu, 14 June 2012 11:30 UTC
Return-Path: <roy@nominet.org.uk>
X-Original-To: dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 51C3221F8528 for <dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Jun 2012 04:30:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.8
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.8 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, SARE_SUB_RAND_LETTRS4=0.799]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3I+6RpqMf-hS for <dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Jun 2012 04:30:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx3.nominet.org.uk (mail.nominet.org.uk [213.248.199.23]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 08F5521F8518 for <dnsext@ietf.org>; Thu, 14 Jun 2012 04:30:37 -0700 (PDT)
DomainKey-Signature: s=main.dk.nominet.selector; d=nominet.org.uk; c=nofws; q=dns; h=X-IronPort-AV:Received:Received:From:To:Subject: Thread-Topic:Thread-Index:Date:Message-ID:Accept-Language: Content-Language:X-MS-Has-Attach:X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Content-Type:Content-ID:Content-Transfer-Encoding: MIME-Version; b=sWuI+p+GWJpCwvuLwyCoRGD59m655opOAsyt3Fl63Fm8QXyD4s6y8s4N X0idEODQys2IULazX23nMunrDzzacf2rz2I2Ds/OfrTmEe9CRoLEdeIhe OquPs1vltqHypOb;
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=nominet.org.uk; i=roy@nominet.org.uk; q=dns/txt; s=main.dkim.nominet.selector; t=1339673439; x=1371209439; h=from:sender:reply-to:subject:date:message-id:to:cc: mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:content-id: content-description:resent-date:resent-from:resent-sender: resent-to:resent-cc:resent-message-id:in-reply-to: references:list-id:list-help:list-unsubscribe: list-subscribe:list-post:list-owner:list-archive; z=From:=20Roy=20Arends=20<roy@nominet.org.uk>|Subject:=20D NS=20RRTYPEs=20for=20ILNP=20review=20-=20Comments=20perio d=20end=20July=205th|Date:=20Wed,=2013=20Jun=202012=2022: 00:50=20+0000|Message-ID:=20<AFBE7423-3069-4443-8E24-B6D1 B562BC1D@nominet.org.uk>|To:=20"dnsext@ietf.org"=20<dnsex t@ietf.org>|MIME-Version:=201.0 |Content-Transfer-Encoding:=20quoted-printable |Content-ID:=20<51a71aad-41f0-4985-aa31-129a5dd83315>; bh=hqeabu8M3wglMsDAmt4W0XrdpS5oObe7DTEL4g01Z9A=; b=zBcPn5jH4eoD+X1VXb2UIOL6Ngnu2W9OZlqUBVCSzHZMjjdRdy0XsAsf onufrvdwpWNlbWKikFR1dv63Ui16VK9X6Uv2+iEoO8FS+XO7GishPVRDe l1Tpy8vyXN7O9gv;
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.77,406,1336345200"; d="scan'208";a="40879721"
Received: from wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk ([213.248.197.144]) by mx3.nominet.org.uk with ESMTP; 13 Jun 2012 23:00:49 +0100
Received: from WDS-EXC2.okna.nominet.org.uk ([fe80::7577:eaca:5241:25d4]) by wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk ([fe80::1593:1394:a91f:8f5f%19]) with mapi; Wed, 13 Jun 2012 23:00:48 +0100
From: Roy Arends <roy@nominet.org.uk>
To: "dnsext@ietf.org" <dnsext@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: DNS RRTYPEs for ILNP review - Comments period end July 5th
Thread-Index: AQHNSa/9+x84EXpypEO1mag2mEigIw==
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 22:00:50 +0000
Message-ID: <AFBE7423-3069-4443-8E24-B6D1B562BC1D@nominet.org.uk>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <51a71aad-41f0-4985-aa31-129a5dd83315>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: [dnsext] DNS RRTYPEs for ILNP review - Comments period end July 5th
X-BeenThere: dnsext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: DNS Extensions working group discussion list <dnsext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dnsext>, <mailto:dnsext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsext>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext>, <mailto:dnsext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 11:30:40 -0000
Dear Colleagues, Below is a completed template requesting new RRTYPE assignments under the procedures of RFC6195. This message starts a 3 weeks period for an expert-review of the DNS RRTYPE parameter allocations for ILNP specified in http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-irtf-rrg-ilnp-dns-05.txt If you have comments regarding this request please post them here before July 5th 18:00 UTC. Best Regards, Roy Arends DNS RRTYPE PARAMETER ALLOCATION TEMPLATE When ready for formal consideration, this template is to be submitted to IANA for processing by emailing the template to dns-rrtype-applications@ietf.org. A. Submission Date: To be determined. B. Submission Type: [X] New RRTYPE C. Contact Information for submitter: Name: R. Atkinson Email Address: rja.lists@gmail.com International telephone number: unlisted Other contact handles: D. Motivation for the new RRTYPE application? Support for an experimental set of IP extensions that replace the concept of an "IP Address" with distinct "Locator" and "Identifier" values. E. Description of the proposed RR type. Please see: http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-irtf-rrg-ilnp-dns-05.txt for a full description. F. What existing RRTYPE or RRTYPEs come closest to filling that need and why are they unsatisfactory? There is no RRTYPE that fulfils the need due to the new semantics of Locator and Identifier values. The AAAA record combines both Locator and Identifier, so has significantly different semantics than having separate L64 and NID record values. The AAAA record also lacks scalability and flexibility in the context of the experimental protocol extensions that will use the NID and L64 records, as any valid NID record value for a node can be used on the wire with any valid L64 record value for the same node. The CNAME record is closest conceptually to an LP record, but a CNAME is a node name referral scheme, while the LP record is indicating that the given node has the same routing prefix as some other domain name, but does not necessarily have any other values that are the same. Lastly, the AAAA and CNAME RR Types lack a Preference field to rank responses. Such Preference information is required for ILNP in order to support the use of multiple instances of NID, L32, L64 and LP records. G. What mnemonic is requested for the new RRTYPE (optional)? As described in this draft, "NID", "L32", "L64", and "LP". H. Does the requested RRTYPE make use of any existing IANA Registry or require the creation of a new IANA sub-registry in DNS Parameters? Existing registry of DNS Resource Record (RR) data TYPE values should be used. I. Does the proposal require/expect any changes in DNS servers/resolvers that prevent the new type from being processed as an unknown RRTYPE (see [RFC3597]) ? No. J. Comments: This document defines "ILNP-aware" DNS servers or DNS resolver as a DNS server (authoritative or recursive) that MAY include other ILNP RRTypes in the Additional section of a DNS response that match a QNAME (if size permits). This is to reduce the number of DNS stub resolver follow-up DNS queries. and only applies when the QTYPE is either NID, L32, L64, or LP. There is no signalling mechanism for this Additional section processing, and this is believed to be compatible with existing non-ILNP-aware DNS servers and DNS stub resolvers. No changes are required for existing deployed DNS servers or DNS resolvers.
- [dnsext] DNS RRTYPEs for ILNP review - Comments p… Roy Arends
- Re: [dnsext] DNS RRTYPEs for ILNP review - Commen… Tony Finch
- Re: [dnsext] DNS RRTYPEs for ILNP review - Commen… Stephane Bortzmeyer
- Re: [dnsext] DNS RRTYPEs for ILNP review - Commen… Stephane Bortzmeyer
- [dnsext] ILNP RRTYPEs review - result [IANA #5610… Roy Arends