Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf-06.txt

Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net> Thu, 29 March 2018 21:44 UTC

Return-Path: <dhc@dcrocker.net>
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 E29D212E040 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Mar 2018 14:44:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 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_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-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=dcrocker.net
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 xwP2QHq55lo6 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Mar 2018 14:44:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from simon.songbird.com (simon.songbird.com [72.52.113.5]) (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 98DE712E03F for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Mar 2018 14:44:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.168] (76-218-8-128.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net [76.218.8.128]) (authenticated bits=0) by simon.songbird.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/Debian-4.1ubuntu1) with ESMTP id w2TLk8eo020286 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 29 Mar 2018 14:46:08 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=dcrocker.net; s=default; t=1522359969; bh=zy3DiqfqU+j5da5iX7p8Ky922iRXf9h2Lmtw1mbYFaU=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Reply-To:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=k4HAxRBsUKBp+m7BwpOk997hhV3gQVLDMku2G3dOCcydoLxnLjNQmz5OntCVA/3Bg EnKn8QO8wtiVB6zhmqRPlst4CMPaWnU8BexJmfYWGZ3kA2IW1BgW67hXnkBVz/sded 1CRnmVTKKsr3H08cHi4yWs/Mpmsvyp+sCz2mwsbo=
To: Paul Vixie <paul@redbarn.org>
Cc: dnsop@ietf.org
References: <152225104695.29861.12372554810426800977@ietfa.amsl.com> <5ABBE1D3.9050608@redbarn.org> <22b570aa-c552-d060-c115-e98bbb86efa1@dcrocker.net> <5ABD14D3.80005@redbarn.org> <9cbc682a-33a9-fa7b-b88b-f392d79840fb@dcrocker.net> <5ABD22AA.7080509@redbarn.org>
From: Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
Message-ID: <618fd5c8-baa1-53dc-120e-ecb5a10e7cb5@dcrocker.net>
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2018 14:44:35 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <5ABD22AA.7080509@redbarn.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/QO1wRWDR1eZbUgZiOtTU6Ek0Lgc>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf-06.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: Thu, 29 Mar 2018 21:44:45 -0000

On 3/29/2018 10:30 AM, Paul Vixie wrote:
> since the _ was chosen as nonconflicting, and since you desire to 
> explain what it is we aren't conflicting with, and since the RFC 1035 
> language is both non-normative and archaic by inspection, i really think 
> that 952 is the correct, and only correct, reference to use.

Thanks for the detailed explication.  I think it's odd to have a DNS 
naming-related discussion that does not cite either of the seminal 
standards documents for domain naming, but I suppose there's isn't much 
downside at this place in the document, to cite only RFC 952.


> as a side node, RFC 952 permits host names of only 24 characters or 
> less, including those which have interior periods for RFC 921 purposes. 
> therefore, a protocol lawyer could say that any name longer than 24 
> characters, or beginning with a number, was by definition 
> non-conflicting with RFC 952, and needs no underscore to achieve same. i 
> do not harbor this view, and i believe that the LEXICAL GRAMMAR section 
> is more definitional than the ASSUMPTIONS section of RFC 952.

To me, that's an example of the problem with citing only that document: 
It is not definitive on 'host name'.  That RFC 1035 isn't, really, 
either was my reason for wanting to cite both.  But anyhow, the next 
version will have only 952.


>> Trying to eliminate the issue entirely, is this sufficient:
>>
>> <section title="Scaling Benefits">
>>
>> <t>Some resource record types are used in a fashion that can create
>> scaling problems, if an entire RRset associated with a domain name is
>> aggregated in the leaf node for that name. An increasingly-popular
>> approach, with excellent scaling properties, places the RR under a
>> node having an underscore-based name, at a defined place in the DNS
>> tree under the 'parent' name. This constrains the use of particular
>> <spanx style="verb">RR</spanx> types associated with that parent
>> name. A direct lookup to the subordinate leaf node produces only the
>> desired record types, at no greater cost than a typical DNS
>> lookup.</t>
>>
>> <t>The definition of a underscore global registry, provided in this
>> specification, primarily attends to the top-most names used for
>> coping an RR type; that is the _underscore "global" names. </t>
>>
>> </section>
> 
> it's almost 100% of the way there. but, you should say "places the 
> RRset"

oops.  quite correct.


>>>>> in: 2. DNS Underscore Scoped Entry Registries Function
>>>> ...
>>>>> /name space/name space, just as every RR type owns a distinct,
>>>>> subordinate name space./
>>>>
>>>> An RR type owns a name space? I don't understand what that means or how
>>>> it is correct.
>>
>> While I think I see a computer science basis for saying that an RR type
>> has a namespace, I'm continuing to find the point more confusing than
>> helpful, and fear that other readers will, too.
>>
>> At the least, can you point me to official documents that explain that
>> view? I've looked around a bit an haven't found such a specification or
>> discussion.
> 
> it only contains a namespace for the purposes of your underscore 
> registry. no use of _TCP by any other RR type will conflict with the use 
> of _TCP by SRV, for example. thus, each RR type effectively has its own 
> registry, whose names need only be unique within that registry. you may 
> prefer to call it a dictionary rather than a namespace in order to avoid 
> confusion around what other DNS RFC's call a "namespace".

Oh.  Alas, I'm still not seeing how this is helpful pedagogy for the 
average reader.  Let's suspend this until the next version and see how 
the doc sits with folks.

d/


-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net