IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-dnsop-session-signal-12: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

"Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF)" <ietf@kuehlewind.net> Wed, 01 August 2018 11:32 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf@kuehlewind.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 A454C130E64 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Aug 2018 04:32:18 -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=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); domainkeys=pass (1024-bit key) header.from=ietf@kuehlewind.net header.d=kuehlewind.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 gft2SUnaqN80 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Aug 2018 04:32:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from kuehlewind.net (kuehlewind.net [83.169.45.111]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1828D130FCE for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Wed, 1 Aug 2018 04:32:16 -0700 (PDT)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=default; d=kuehlewind.net; b=rG6GVgKbeAotqcZVjEAP20xScTMpj0dH9jeAZotBi94OJgYTWAQj13Xu5sUv3jZYITKEq8LDkF111dAoRcTFy+ha7uUkwqryKYqL2w/73BQaKbmZJqRQLoj5SSeqa76J6zEDKapzDW+Jx8EeQpOzZbbPnRdGAjKAAb+XTu/YH2A=; h=Received:Received:Content-Type:Mime-Version:Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Message-Id:References:To:X-Mailer:X-PPP-Message-ID:X-PPP-Vhost;
Received: (qmail 625 invoked from network); 1 Aug 2018 13:25:34 +0200
Received: from i577bce12.versanet.de (HELO ?192.168.178.24?) (87.123.206.18) by kuehlewind.net with ESMTPSA (DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted, authenticated); 1 Aug 2018 13:25:34 +0200
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.1\))
From: "Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF)" <ietf@kuehlewind.net>
In-Reply-To: <20180731202542.GO96369@kduck.kaduk.org>
Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2018 13:17:49 +0200
Cc: tjw.ietf@gmail.com, dnsop@ietf.org, dnsop-chairs@ietf.org, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-dnsop-session-signal@ietf.org, Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@MIT.EDU>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <2D7288D8-A26B-4703-8710-FCFB23F27F33@kuehlewind.net>
References: <153270509617.32757.1191915890190419981.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <EFFB4DC5-5A4B-4EAB-8B9F-56229080CDF0@bangj.com> <C2528F63-6B39-4E50-92E6-B089E776BA3F@bangj.com> <20180731202542.GO96369@kduck.kaduk.org>
To: Tom Pusateri <pusateri@bangj.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1)
X-PPP-Message-ID: <20180801112534.615.64038@lvps83-169-45-111.dedicated.hosteurope.de>
X-PPP-Vhost: kuehlewind.net
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/aIQBmP0rJ7GuAXssKCQzrm2qeSg>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-dnsop-session-signal-12: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27
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, 01 Aug 2018 11:32:19 -0000

Might not hurt to also just mention this in the doc as a reminder for the reader...

> Am 31.07.2018 um 22:25 schrieb Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@MIT.EDU>:
> 
> On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 04:14:41PM -0400, Tom Pusateri wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>> On Jul 31, 2018, at 3:53 PM, Tom Pusateri <pusateri@bangj.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>  If the RCODE is set to any value other than NOERROR (0) or DSOTYPENI
>>>>  ([TBA2] tentatively 11), then the client MUST assume that the server
>>>>  does not implement DSO at all.  In this case the client is permitted
>>>>  to continue sending DNS messages on that connection, but the client
>>>>  SHOULD NOT issue further DSO messages on that connection.
>>>> 
>>>> I'm confused how the server would still have proper framing for subsequent
>>>> DNS messages, since the DSO TLVs would be "spurious extra data" after a
>>>> request header and potentially subject to misinterpretation as the start of
>>>> another DNS message header.
>>> 
>>> Yes, this is a serious oversight. I think we are going to need to encode differently to make all the TLVs look like an RR externally so the RDLEN can be used to skip them and add a single count or switch the TLV syntax back to RR syntax. The existing DNS header format / RR format is less than ideal...
>>> 
>> 
>> My co-authors reminded me about the TCP framing for DNS which gives the length of the DNS message so it can easily be skipped so this isn’t a problem.
> 
> Ah, that would do the trick.  It looks like I only chased up through the
> header format in 1035 and didn't scroll down to the "TCP usage" section.
> Sorry for the noise.
> 
> -Benjamin
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email