IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc7816bis: hopefully ready for WG Last Call

Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at> Fri, 06 November 2020 00:43 UTC

Return-Path: <dot@dotat.at>
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 97C443A09A4 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Nov 2020 16:43:38 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.896
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.896 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 beVCFEEzrqcq for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Nov 2020 16:43:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ppsw-40.csi.cam.ac.uk (ppsw-40.csi.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.140]) (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 7B5FF3A0991 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 5 Nov 2020 16:43:36 -0800 (PST)
X-Cam-AntiVirus: no malware found
X-Cam-ScannerInfo: http://help.uis.cam.ac.uk/email-scanner-virus
Received: from grey.csi.cam.ac.uk ([131.111.57.57]:38024) by ppsw-40.csi.cam.ac.uk (ppsw.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.138]:25) with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) id 1kapqn-000yjS-lV (Exim 4.92.3) (return-path <dot@dotat.at>); Fri, 06 Nov 2020 00:43:33 +0000
Date: Fri, 06 Nov 2020 00:43:33 +0000
From: Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at>
To: Dave Lawrence <tale@dd.org>
cc: dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <24483.19586.61363.930584@gro.dd.org>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.2011060027390.20609@grey.csi.cam.ac.uk>
References: <24483.19586.61363.930584@gro.dd.org>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (DEB 67 2015-01-07)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/Y_Hjy3Lg-QIoJ4ZhtBA6ZqMhsbQ>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc7816bis: hopefully ready for WG Last Call
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: Fri, 06 Nov 2020 00:43:39 -0000

Dave Lawrence <tale@dd.org> wrote:
>
> Could you please clarify explicitly what should happen in the case of
> encountering CNAMEs?  Or DNAMEs?

I guess when I originally sketched a qname minimization algorithm
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dns-privacy/gAgGx9Zz6W0OfyRdJ0Rx7xxmHDg/
I intended that it would slot into the RFC 1034 resolver algorithm
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1034#section-4.3.2
which treats QNAME as a variable name rather than a protocol field, so
the QNAME changes when the resolver chases a CNAME.

That was probably a bad idea: on balance I think it's better to make a
clear distinction between protocol fields and variables in algorithms.
Elsewhere RFC 1034 uses SNAME for the variable containing the name we are
searching for https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1034#section-5.3.3
which would be better if it hadn't used QNAME for the same thing elsewhere
:-)

Tony.
-- 
f.anthony.n.finch  <dot@dotat.at>  http://dotat.at/
Fitzroy: Easterly 6 to gale 8, becoming cyclonic 5 to 7. Rough or very rough,
becoming moderate or rough later. Thundery showers. Good, occasionally poor.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email