Re: [DNSOP] Updated draft-hoffman-dns-in-json

Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@icann.org> Wed, 21 September 2016 22:49 UTC

Return-Path: <paul.hoffman@icann.org>
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 876F612BCD5; Wed, 21 Sep 2016 15:49:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.517
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.517 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-2.316, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=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 OSDbvh0ViVyd; Wed, 21 Sep 2016 15:49:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out.west.pexch112.icann.org (pfe112-ca-1.pexch112.icann.org [64.78.40.7]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9EC4C12BF1E; Wed, 21 Sep 2016 15:49:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from PMBX112-W1-CA-1.pexch112.icann.org (64.78.40.21) by PMBX112-W1-CA-1.pexch112.icann.org (64.78.40.21) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1178.4; Wed, 21 Sep 2016 15:49:16 -0700
Received: from PMBX112-W1-CA-1.pexch112.icann.org ([64.78.40.21]) by PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG ([64.78.40.21]) with mapi id 15.00.1178.000; Wed, 21 Sep 2016 15:49:16 -0700
From: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@icann.org>
To: George Michaelson <ggm@algebras.org>
Thread-Topic: [DNSOP] Updated draft-hoffman-dns-in-json
Thread-Index: AQHSFElmuV9YGu60eECLFU2Hcl5zK6CE+CGAgAAJZoA=
Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2016 22:49:16 +0000
Message-ID: <A501FFF2-6CAE-4BCC-B52A-64834F7F0540@icann.org>
References: <147449058806.14589.3836574543576167857.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <F07708D9-528D-436A-B300-CD55F22DDE00@icann.org> <CAKr6gn3crqDntfAR=EHdoiZQLfVGOr5equv6M8gONZv6R-AMeA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAKr6gn3crqDntfAR=EHdoiZQLfVGOr5equv6M8gONZv6R-AMeA@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [192.0.32.234]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <E828269C60377944A7ECF5B786A95726@pexch112.icann.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/FZ-DeN1lt3R9apUZaPruhCO8n7E>
Cc: "dnsoverhttp@ietf.org" <dnsoverhttp@ietf.org>, dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Updated draft-hoffman-dns-in-json
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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, 21 Sep 2016 22:49:35 -0000

On Sep 21, 2016, at 3:15 PM, George Michaelson <ggm@algebras.org> wrote:
> I really like this document. I particularly like that it explicitly
> addresses how the JSON format it uses can represent *malformed* DNS
> state, as seen on the wire. This is very important, because some
> canonicalize-and-map-the-DNS efforts I've seen have focussed on
> well-formed packets, and this one stands out as saying "no, we have to
> be able to represent incorrect state, because that exists on the wire,
> and we need to show it sometimes"
> 
> It has multiple encoding possibilities for the DNS RR. I'm a little
> confused what difference it makes, that you'd want 'all the things'
> here. If the argument is 'long crypto hashes are better done as
> base64' then why do we have the hex at all?

Hex is easier to type for short blobs.

> Is that to preserve
> bit-field legibility for instance? Or, to encode unintelligible
> off-the-wire sequences which present as a valid RR but you can't
> decompose into their constituents? Maybe its just a little guidance
> when you saw the hex being used? rather than B64.

Really, it's just there because some people prefer one way over the other for some fields.

> Do you need to be explicit that transform through this JSON would
> permit re-emission of the wire content onto a network, and have the
> packets function? Is that even a goal?

Not a goal. (Particularly for badly-formed DNS responses :-) )

> The streaming reference sort-of
> made me think this might be a goal, but it wasn't explicit to me in a
> cursory reading.
> 
> I think this is a good document. I think its close to baked for me.

Thanks! And thanks to the many folks who have suggested (and will hopefully continue to suggest) changes. It's way better than the -00.

--Paul Hoffman