[DNSOP] Re: [dtn] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: IPN and CLA RRTYPEs to support Bundle Protocol RFC9171

Rick Taylor <rick@tropicalstormsoftware.com> Fri, 28 June 2024 12:29 UTC

Return-Path: <rick@tropicalstormsoftware.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 A7944C14F749; Fri, 28 Jun 2024 05:29:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.908
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.908 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bg2KnzOz_4u7; Fri, 28 Jun 2024 05:29:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.tropicalstormsoftware.com (mail.tropicalstormsoftware.com [188.94.42.120]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E6C48C14F748; Fri, 28 Jun 2024 05:29:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tss-server1.home.tropicalstormsoftware.com ([fe80::753b:fa82:5c0:af0d]) by tss-server1.home.tropicalstormsoftware.com ([fe80::753b:fa82:5c0:af0d%10]) with mapi id 14.03.0513.000; Fri, 28 Jun 2024 13:29:13 +0100
From: Rick Taylor <rick@tropicalstormsoftware.com>
To: Jorge Amodio <jmamodio@gmail.com>, Scott Johnson <scott@spacelypackets.com>
Thread-Topic: [dtn] Re: [DNSOP] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: IPN and CLA RRTYPEs to support Bundle Protocol RFC9171
Thread-Index: AQHayVQSDS//uY/+iUKcht8JHtCHKLHdGuJQ
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2024 12:29:12 +0000
Message-ID: <38A5475DE83986499AEACD2CFAFC3F980273739B91@tss-server1.home.tropicalstormsoftware.com>
References: <fa28794e-d02b-aa93-56c8-082a3472c6e4@spacelypackets.com> <AC5B89B2-DD53-4A36-9B87-4136EC288851@isc.org> <2dec1732-841e-dd38-85a8-3263b1c59885@spacelypackets.com> <C363E260-22EA-43E9-97B6-D7A403C205ED@isc.org> <98976a58-b976-e82c-4b12-76edce92e691@spacelypackets.com> <CAMGpriUVcoJu1CWWLapwREN2NaHJFnVkGUpF45TJotm7uyAxyg@mail.gmail.com> <3cfc8b7c-9128-46b5-c458-ac0ebb9c79bc@spacelypackets.com> <38A5475DE83986499AEACD2CFAFC3F980273735D06@tss-server1.home.tropicalstormsoftware.com> <b3ee82da-ae38-5781-77eb-bab292d5c113@spacelypackets.com> <cca98f92-27ee-d372-b419-81c63777033b@spacelypackets.com> <38A5475DE83986499AEACD2CFAFC3F980273739166@tss-server1.home.tropicalstormsoftware.com> <0910E1D8-C678-498C-BAB5-AC3AA4C75750@isc.org> <e364da36-00e3-7c14-30b0-34f20b244f0a@redbarn.org> <6ff67491-30cf-cdc0-5e19-c1122465386c@spacelypackets.com> <38A5475DE83986499AEACD2CFAFC3F9802737395E2@tss-server1.home.tropicalstormsoftware.com> <8b864323-a43d-3861-17e6-9f422b2d4592@spacelypackets.com> <CAMzo+1at5W71ybFkchHBi8g1=fdF1L3mXqhZwZBGTtxbDnjj4A@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAMzo+1at5W71ybFkchHBi8g1=fdF1L3mXqhZwZBGTtxbDnjj4A@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.10.0.3]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_38A5475DE83986499AEACD2CFAFC3F980273739B91tssserver1hom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID-Hash: VK46O6CWYMFSSUF2CP6FB6GGZSUYMGFX
X-Message-ID-Hash: VK46O6CWYMFSSUF2CP6FB6GGZSUYMGFX
X-MailFrom: rick@tropicalstormsoftware.com
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-dnsop.ietf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
CC: Erik Kline <ek.ietf@gmail.com>, dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>, "sburleig.sb@gmail.com" <sburleig.sb@gmail.com>, "dtn@ietf.org" <dtn@ietf.org>
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc4
Precedence: list
Subject: [DNSOP] Re: [dtn] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: IPN and CLA RRTYPEs to support Bundle Protocol RFC9171
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <dnsop.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/_nLXvcmRjytaMq5O17qXKxo5uVA>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dnsop>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:dnsop-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsop@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:dnsop-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:dnsop-leave@ietf.org>

+1

From: Jorge Amodio [mailto:jmamodio@gmail.com]
Sent: 28 June 2024 13:09
To: Scott Johnson
Cc: Rick Taylor; Erik Kline; dnsop; sburleig.sb@gmail.com; dtn@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [dtn] Re: [DNSOP] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: IPN and CLA RRTYPEs to support Bundle Protocol RFC9171


Hi Scott,

Just a suggestion, why not request a time slot during the next IETF WG meeting and put together a brief presentation including some basic examples showing how applications will benefit using this proposed DNS based solution ?

Regards
Jorge


On Fri, Jun 28, 2024 at 4:12 AM Scott Johnson <scott@spacelypackets.com<mailto:scott@spacelypackets.com>> wrote:
Hi Rick,

As I have previously stated, I personally have lodged no objection to
using CBOR encoding of (node-nbr) in this case, and actually mentioned the
option myself.  Here is the situation as I see it:

I have requested the creation in the IANA database of the IPN and CLA
RRTYPEs, by the means detailed in RFC6895, section 3.1.1; to whit,
completed (twice, one for each) the form found in Appendix A. of same.
My requests meet the criteria of part 2 of 3.1.1.

I ran afound of section 3.1.2, point 1, as the Expert Reviewer explained
that I needed to designate wire and presentation formats for the requested
records, in Individual Informational internet-draft format.

I produced that document, and, as suggested by Expert Reviewer, sent it to
DNSOP for review.  There, I received guidance on verbiage and optimal
choice of formats from DNS expert Mark Andrews.  I also consulted Scott
Burleigh, first named author of RFC9171, for any particular BP related
concerns.  With the help of, and achieving concensus with these two
learned individuals who possess significant specialized knowledge of the
two systems we are integrating in the above described standardized
process, we arrived at a viable document in several hours.

Upon request of Transport AD, I forwarded to DTN.  Of the productive
responses received, Brian Sipos pointed out an interoperability problem
with the notation I wove from whole cloth (based on the notation used in
IPND) to describe CLAs, and you requested information concerning
motivations of the document.  Time being of the essense, I incorporated
changes to address the point Brian made and added a section to text
describing my motivation.  I did so in short order, as I did previously
with the consultations on DNSOP.

You raised technical challenges to the proposed 64-bit integer wire
encoding for IPN in this use case, citing RFC9171, and your own draft.
Section 4.2.5.1.2 clearly defines the rules for encoding of EIDs.  Only
one component of EID is to be encoded in the RRTYPE, and hence, not an
EID.  Further, 64-bit integer is the preferred encoding of the DNS
experts, and Scott Burleigh has confirmed that this proposal conforms to
the encoding defined in your draft; an assertation which has not been
refuted.  It has also been confirmed that there is no conflict between
the registration of these RRTYPEs in the described formats and the content
of your draft.

This particular encoding is not for use inside bundles or by BPAs; indeed,
it will only appear (please correct me if i am wrong, DNSOP participants)
internally inside nameservers and resolvers and on the wire between them.
Thus, these technical challenges seem to have been addressed.

An alternate proposal was put forward in theory, fulfilled in part by an
expired draft by Brian Sipos, who has indicated that he does not have time
to work on that solution at present.  I believe him; I imagine his
workplace is exceedingly busy of late.  I know mine is.

Having arrived at loose consensus with experts from both disciplines
involved, and lacking a good reason to further revise the draft which is
now before the Expert Reviewer for a decision as to the creation of the
RRTYPEs, I think the best course of action is to let the Expert Reviewer
do their job and approve or (hopefully not) deny the RRTYPE reservations.
The IANA registry will likely reference my draft if approved, and I will
likely be requesting at least one more RRTYPE to hold BPSEC data.

If DTN WG wishes to take up this special purpose individual informational
draft instead of other pressing business it is chartered for, it is free
to do so.  It is in no way necessary to do so to perfect my RRTYPE request
procedure, and seems a waste of time to me.  If you want something for the
WG to take up, I will be producing another Informational draft soon which
you will surely find interesting concerning discrete DNS networks on
different planetary bodies interoperating by means of transiting IP
request metadata across the BP deep space network.  That, IMHO, is worthy
of asking the attention of the group here assembled.

Please understand; we are operating in an Adopt, Adapt, Author order of
preference when it comes to solving real world problems being faced right
now.  In this case, 'Adopt'ing new DNS RRTYPEs to distribute BP
information to IP speaking BP nodes fits the bill.  It "just works" in a
way that those who will use it will already understand, and is easy to
implement all the way around.  It may not be the best solution possible,
but it was the best one available.

Thanks,
Scott



On Thu, 27 Jun 2024, Rick Taylor wrote:

> Hi Scott,
>
> <chair hat on>
>
> I absolutely sympathise with your need to "grab an RRTYPE and make progress", but there is a process choice to be made here:
>
> * Do DNSOPS want the RRTYPE registrations to integrate with the wider work of the DTN working group?  In which case discussion like this must continue, and the document should be adopted by the WG.
> * Or is everyone happy to register the RRTYPEs as "ScottJ and colleagues need some unique RRTYPEs for the solution they're working on - no alignment  with the wider work of the DTN WG implied"?  I would propose calling the RRTYPE NODEID not IPN to make this clear, and not have the reference specification be an IETF document.
>
> I'm genuinely not trying to scupper this work.  I'm actually happy with either approach, I'm just trying to ensure moving fast doesn't accidently set perceived standards that then consume WG cycles in the future to align with current work.
>
> But before we consume too much more of all of our time, a decision needs to be made on the approach, and I think Erik (DTN AD), the DNSOPS Designated Experts/Chairs and Scott need to discuss their preferred options.
>
> We have "Naming and addressing" as part of the DTN WG charter, so this work could be adopted if the WG is willing, but that may not suit Scott's timeline.
>
> Cheers,
> Rick
> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list -- dnsop@ietf.org<mailto:dnsop@ietf.org>
> To unsubscribe send an email to dnsop-leave@ietf.org<mailto:dnsop-leave@ietf.org>

_______________________________________________
dtn mailing list -- dtn@ietf.org<mailto:dtn@ietf.org>
To unsubscribe send an email to dtn-leave@ietf.org<mailto:dtn-leave@ietf.org>