Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-session-signal-03.txt
Petr Špaček <petr.spacek@nic.cz> Wed, 19 July 2017 13:45 UTC
Return-Path: <petr.spacek@nic.cz>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 07F45131D35 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Jul 2017 06:45:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-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_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-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=nic.cz
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 00QheyJYZIoI for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Jul 2017 06:45:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.nic.cz (mail.nic.cz [IPv6:2001:1488:800:400::400]) (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 22017131D2E for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Wed, 19 Jul 2017 06:45:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [31.133.133.190] (dhcp-85be.meeting.ietf.org [31.133.133.190]) by mail.nic.cz (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5E0AD6096F; Wed, 19 Jul 2017 15:45:15 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=nic.cz; s=default; t=1500471915; bh=MXqlrnUQq8xXVR9uJlcBESiZec/+BF/g6BDTu4FcAec=; h=To:From:Date; b=L5Weysr+ChwTROBV7nn8ION+/AgnuoVtBAqgsaw24fKO9/cF3/reJFRSO4Sv0LW6c CRU/LC79htDJtDBNnn3sf9EmyWDSeMYvPSljlwk+pev87+cId+1kpazeKaLNDDL7f+ DkLBRWTo52dt6KFjoU3i2XSet29vVUi2zTP6wjFw=
To: Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org>
Cc: dnsop@ietf.org
References: <149912520399.16222.12738253224617069728@ietfa.amsl.com> <89e8d29c-1692-732c-df3b-8b7915415629@nic.cz> <5C0034DB-657E-4191-86CC-05B06F11EEAF@fugue.com> <77d0bc67-d6c3-de37-e88b-6b3612cf3d3e@nic.cz> <20170719031536.05E1B7EA7FA6@rock.dv.isc.org>
From: Petr Špaček <petr.spacek@nic.cz>
Organization: CZ.NIC
Message-ID: <ebbebcbf-e99d-dead-d838-7154b00fa3c7@nic.cz>
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2017 15:45:15 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.2.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20170719031536.05E1B7EA7FA6@rock.dv.isc.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.99.2 at mail
X-Virus-Status: Clean
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/1fDK7V1UFTLOhZRqXrMLp3dU23c>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-session-signal-03.txt
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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, 19 Jul 2017 13:45:33 -0000
On 19.7.2017 05:15, Mark Andrews wrote: > In message <77d0bc67-d6c3-de37-e88b-6b3612cf3d3e@nic.cz>, =?UTF-8?B?UGV0ciDFoHBhxI1law==?= writes: >> On 11.7.2017 13:23, Ted Lemon wrote: >>> On Jul 11, 2017, at 3:17 AM, Petr paek <petr.spacek@nic.cz >>> <mailto:petr.spacek@nic.cz>> wrote: >>>> I feel that implications from switch to non-RR format are >> underestimated >>>> and following e-mail attempts to explain why I believe it is a bad >> idea. >>>> Please accept my apology for such long e-mail. >>> >>> Petr, with all due respect, I did not see a counter-proposal here, and >>> your comments seem to reflect a misunderstanding of what >>> session-signaling is. >>> >>> In fact, the opposite of what you said is true: if this were done as a >>> normal query with EDNS0-like encapsulation, _then_ we would see >>> problems, because session signaling messages would look more like DNS >>> queries, and less like control messages. This is not a desirable >> quality. >>> >>> It's true that, for example, the DNS packet compression format would >>> have to deal with this specially, but that would also be true if this >>> were done EDNS0-style. It's true that packet dumpers would have to >>> deal with this specially, but that's also true if it's done EDNS0-style. >>> Etc. >> >> Let me clarify that I'm not insisting specifically on EDNS0. From my >> perspective anything which does not deviate from current wire format is >> okay. >> >> >>> It may be that there is a good point in your argument somewhere, but at >>> the moment, I don't see one. E.g., in your python example, yes, if >>> this were an RR, not being able to plop it into your RR-handling switch >>> would suck. But it's not an RR, doesn't have the semantics of an RR, >>> and if you plop it into your RR-handling switch, you're probably getting >>> the semantics wrong. >> >> This might be key to the the misunderstanding: >> >> I'm not talking about semantics at all. What I object to is the proposed >> wire format, not the semantics. The fact that bytes are stored in format >> compatible with RR (RFC 1035 section 4.1.3) is not related to its >> semantics. >> >>> So if you want to make this case, I think you need to be more specific >>> about why this is a problem: when I think about how to implement this >>> (which I have done, because I'm using it for dnssd), what you are >>> advocating seems harder, not easier, than what is currently being >> proposed. >> I'm trying to explain that deviance from RR format (RFC 1035 section >> 4.1.3) will force parties in the DNS ecosystem to implement support for >> the new wire format even though they are not interested in session >> signaling at all. > > Hogwash. Servers which are unaware of the opcode will return NOTIMP > or FORMERR depending on how forward thinking the developer was. > > If you have a packet dumper YOU ALREADY HAVE TO ACCOUNT FOR THIS. > There are ZERO guarentees that a packet addresses to/from port 53 > is a DNS packet. If your packet dumper can't handle these then > it is already broken. > > If you are just proxying DNS messages this should be transparent. If > the proxy is parsing the message then it returns NOTIMP or FORMERR. > >> For a lot of cases it would be sufficient if SS data could be treated as >> one of many "unknown RR types" (RFC 3597). For example tools for >> statistics would work, the capture formats would not need special >> extensions for SS, etc. >> >> We can discuss this in depth during dnsop session today. WG decided to go forward with TLV format. I still think it is a mistake but I'm going to respect WG decicion and thus I'm giving up. Further discussion on this topic is pointless. -- Petr Špaček @ CZ.NIC
- [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-session-sign… internet-drafts
- Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-session-… Petr Špaček
- Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-session-… P Vix
- Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-session-… Ted Lemon
- Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-session-… Petr Špaček
- Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-session-… Mark Andrews
- Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-session-… Petr Špaček