Re: [DNSOP] Alias mode processing in auths for draft-ietf-dnsop-svcb-https-01

Ben Schwartz <bemasc@google.com> Tue, 11 August 2020 21:53 UTC

Return-Path: <bemasc@google.com>
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 B371E3A0CC8 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 Aug 2020 14:53:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -17.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-17.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, ENV_AND_HDR_SPF_MATCH=-0.5, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5, USER_IN_DEF_SPF_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.com
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 rrWWI5mBoeoj for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 Aug 2020 14:53:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-io1-xd2c.google.com (mail-io1-xd2c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d2c]) (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 7D8313A0BCF for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 11 Aug 2020 14:53:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-io1-xd2c.google.com with SMTP id g14so548559iom.0 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 11 Aug 2020 14:53:54 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=kY/+kA1lQV4SUq9xlzqOktey2WrQU3LlAEHZhov+0FE=; b=KtKLoyIoKWElMryxcd7zogQxA04O6iieXp+UGIX+4dD0Em5cBnW1AIHlfWVgK/HA4K tLQqNv2k47xQ+gectmVcaKN97WkgWdP1mYiMuWWlqW5XImBv3xfOXMgoSoAI/8iQInHl LJZy8zjQqVHJ9pYpQgcBep3Cs/02gBJk/DPf0/nnm1mCQdm+kATe3iKTCrY5+dmDxLAt 4HkZKnwQxxYkN4TBMrxK1+omDZfdqdIdLo1wmfPLonG6531kWxRnHTrY2hL0C7Td1542 OP48h2P7TH89zOivMZ7FUUZGEpw87cx2ElYllrkLUg5ADY+zGphgAKAlIBFIH9acJZA9 C00Q==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=kY/+kA1lQV4SUq9xlzqOktey2WrQU3LlAEHZhov+0FE=; b=WNSJB18jZq7kpNF/eXD57vCy5hLyd1kr0qYj52upO2wWO1HHS62brMiWDKybLjllZQ xgWOx0Ad/XSpC7I3scjekGo0x99RoqYHvfpeS02deooZdbZEOCEKcyYQ9HFkLk6szeyc I85FPwg6bT7e5KEpuEqiYCeJjEkP+GzzNYdNV71q4jUpaxN9ei5+cHIoH4hxgk5xvIep SdkFld/6KM/xRSFs1Fox0qx3Kp9lCN1vgxO8R0CfDcx7DaQNJPN6cL94A/R6Ef9ywfrx nVC4hw8/Ap/fEY5nVNVgxeJghch2+rOllO2zfmqqU8TPj1OEfXI+La0bXK8rzoh6BjA/ 0VNA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530zF50SIVnU7kpHsXKPCol5uhthawQN1Pbr1Z2me8etgFbdx8x2 3BeB+wexELTF8E/HOCbDqmI54wu9fL6JomFDpM8+bg==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwknrwXRCVj1ZHJmcIA/rQNFj4m0lxdEa2X7qVZOKwRRQNM5C/4mTCGz5Z6R/Ts/KBdpIKeaG1JWGNUcjfYMAU=
X-Received: by 2002:a02:7092:: with SMTP id f140mr28517286jac.8.1597182833516; Tue, 11 Aug 2020 14:53:53 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <00cfd965-bf69-d1cb-2df3-1a9bb110d7e0@powerdns.com> <CAHbrMsAJ-cbcW3v4T34f8-gzgzgHSkoBO545_Y3N8D6rof7Nmw@mail.gmail.com> <CAH1iCipZ25XaES0C4MFt3+aOm=d1U5LKigJe5AwKUWG-+yETFw@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.20.2008102304160.21650@grey.csi.cam.ac.uk> <CAHbrMsCePLp=vaw3fgf611TfnFpeUaV3xkCT5BSH3yzu-XZ1rg@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.20.2008112129160.21650@grey.csi.cam.ac.uk> <CAHbrMsBPyrgbbjx0_-w2Ysky63edtw3kKEBu7DrgDCfP_-GBBw@mail.gmail.com> <CAH1iCioL1JrCHo2yuu-90dy4MpRfwUF9iaK-S=NdaXRtvyteXA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAH1iCioL1JrCHo2yuu-90dy4MpRfwUF9iaK-S=NdaXRtvyteXA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Ben Schwartz <bemasc@google.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2020 17:53:40 -0400
Message-ID: <CAHbrMsD8e0mXER0-R7YmjR6GR6kP4rwdoL3uJcB83GPt+XgHcA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Brian Dickson <brian.peter.dickson@gmail.com>
Cc: Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at>, dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>, Pieter Lexis <pieter.lexis@powerdns.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha-256; boundary="0000000000007556fd05aca11b08"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/3PiaVEROsVhtHMmoFkzpmhtYZSM>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Alias mode processing in auths for draft-ietf-dnsop-svcb-https-01
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Tue, 11 Aug 2020 21:53:59 -0000

On Tue, Aug 11, 2020, 5:51 PM Brian Dickson <brian.peter.dickson@gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>
> On Tue, Aug 11, 2020 at 2:38 PM Ben Schwartz <bemasc@google.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 11, 2020 at 4:54 PM Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at> wrote:
>>
>>> Ben Schwartz <bemasc@google.com> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > 1. If TargetName is not in-bailiwick and is not ".", terminate the
>>> procedure.
>>> > 2. If SvcPriority is 0:
>>> >     * If TargetName is ".", terminate the procedure.
>>> >     * Otherwise, perform a SVCB "follow-up" query for TargetName and
>>> add all
>>> >       returned records, including any records added by this procedure.
>>> >       If any SVCB records were added, terminate.
>>> > 3. Perform A and AAAA follow-up queries for TargetName (or for the
>>> owner name if
>>> >    TargetName is "."), and add all returned records.
>>>
>>> I think the actual wording you want here is "in the same zone" not "in
>>> bailiwick".
>>>
>> ...
>>
>> Thanks, I will make that correction.
>>
>
> I think the condition might be, "both in bailiwick and in the same zone"
> meaning "in bailiwick and not below a zone cut"?
>

It seems to me that returning a (downward) delegation could actually be
useful.  So why not include that?


> It may be overly explicit to say "not below a zone cut (delegation
> point)", but "in the same zone" can be erroneously interpreted by
> implementers who fail to recognize the pitfalls of zone cuts.
>
> I might be overthinking it, though.
>
> Brian
>