Re: [DNSOP] Question on RRtypes in RFC 4034 Section 6.2

đź”’Roy Arends <roy@dnss.ec> Wed, 09 December 2015 07:31 UTC

Return-Path: <roy@dnss.ec>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D19561AD190 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 8 Dec 2015 23:31:09 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3] autolearn=no
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 t9ZJHHRiLRRg for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 8 Dec 2015 23:31:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wm0-x235.google.com (mail-wm0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::235]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E1DE61AD17F for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 8 Dec 2015 23:31:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: by wmvv187 with SMTP id v187so246996025wmv.1 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 08 Dec 2015 23:31:06 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=dnss.ec; s=google; h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=p3mv++e1Ltq75Q5giJt/xe+LE/mcEgJ/sEcHJeQ3GGY=; b=gwMSuWVIpuIGyUU3sasEWWnovPUb7CGIuUoFaFW9WCeBs9FPdgqMHrX38avixXDnMj UnTz89BpId4cX5QtMFs+X3h0Yq31F1m6X51MJiTexnDn6uNHcWc3tAxJfldwXvHCId4r Q04862SpQ3AExY6fIAcDIWgXIukvamfS5pdMI=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:content-type:mime-version:subject:from :in-reply-to:date:cc:content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references :to; bh=p3mv++e1Ltq75Q5giJt/xe+LE/mcEgJ/sEcHJeQ3GGY=; b=ABmnbzovajcp8rZAy+JQyCBsAkiA5Uc6+tPqUyWGwSU94EY0mSJyd7PQ1UQmcNtsgk 2qdUVnw0sMDVRCf37Ubutt5c228CicUJSmIkNa15F+c2BIwMM31/OoouAHInzafiLdKz JtU8hhTXoMq5SNQw/M9GRDIuhWVLirvPpY36zZK5IaolJ0Ir5jq+nkkLX1BMpdldYtDd fN5U+MHa4A6Zi1NNhUbFk3Ec/mLmnPE3ZOe6E3XrYbEGSQWt7QNP3fZZ3ngVhzKdd9XP L+goiv9bXT5zglyaoLctfzgRJRxlcFekL0BLXH3dhvvJxbYcZWztd6qvEz7t2AXKoNR0 s6fQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkMU/1tudGM1S5dui08WPKtBr3ImT3uFh23y5Gkzt0zmWk95LwiuZ9pjMo/XfeKRTY5+Ntiz/8K4Bi9PnaZYyzbUZN/Hg==
X-Received: by 10.194.209.235 with SMTP id mp11mr4687852wjc.53.1449646264856; Tue, 08 Dec 2015 23:31:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.66] (host217-42-117-142.range217-42.btcentralplus.com. [217.42.117.142]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id gl10sm6246480wjb.30.2015.12.08.23.31.03 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 08 Dec 2015 23:31:03 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
From: đź”’Roy Arends <roy@dnss.ec>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (13B143)
In-Reply-To: <20151208203736.3F62F3EF0E88@rock.dv.isc.org>
Date: Wed, 09 Dec 2015 07:31:02 +0000
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <35C15C68-B6DB-4970-B816-9295C123E8AE@dnss.ec>
References: <alpine.LFD.2.20.1512081004020.18633@bofh.nohats.ca> <20151208193856.GA5997@mycre.ws> <alpine.LFD.2.20.1512081440270.27931@bofh.nohats.ca> <20151208203736.3F62F3EF0E88@rock.dv.isc.org>
To: Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org>
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/1LQV3cnFKobGL0WOU-Uo26vb2T8>
Cc: dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>, Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Question on RRtypes in RFC 4034 Section 6.2
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <dnsop.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dnsop/>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsop@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 09 Dec 2015 07:31:10 -0000

We'd end up adding stuff to a response in order to make it shorter. 

Is there a clear benefit (shorter responses)? Can you show me a few real world examples?

Thanks

Roy

> On 8 Dec 2015, at 20:37, Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org> wrote:
> 
> 
> In message <alpine.LFD.2.20.1512081440270.27931@bofh.nohats.ca>, Paul Wouters wr
> ites:
>> 
>>> Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Question on RRtypes in RFC 4034 Section 6.2
>> 
>> Thanks everyone for the useful comments. It's all clear to me now.
>> 
>> Paul
> 
> Additionally if we ever wanted to enable compression for new types
> we could use EDNS to signal that the client understands a expand
> set of types and one could use case sensitive compression to preserve
> the original case of the name in the rdata which would allow DNSSEC
> to work to work on the expanded names without having to update every
> client in the world first.
> 
> e.g.
>    EDNS(1) could indicate the client understands the rdata
>    for all the types allocated as of 12:00 Dec 8, 2016.
> 
>    EDNS(2) could indicate the client understands the rdata
>        for all the types allocated as of 12:00 Dec 8, 2020.
> 
> We all should be doing case sensitive compression already as that
> really is part and parcel of preserving the original case as required
> by RFC 103[45].
> 
> I'm actually tempted to say we should do this just to get rid of
> the stupid firewalls that think that it is a good idea to drop EDNS
> != EDNS(0) requests.
> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> DNSOP mailing list
>> DNSOP@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
> -- 
> Mark Andrews, ISC
> 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
> PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: marka@isc.org
> 
> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list
> DNSOP@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop