Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-session-signal-03.txt

Ted Lemon <> Tue, 11 July 2017 11:23 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 785C212F4B2 for <>; Tue, 11 Jul 2017 04:23:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FHGcAb2vB1kM for <>; Tue, 11 Jul 2017 04:23:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c09::232]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 48D92128BC8 for <>; Tue, 11 Jul 2017 04:23:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id p21so99187891qke.3 for <>; Tue, 11 Jul 2017 04:23:50 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20150623; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=k+gdvuXvbJqYsdIoijuKS7kF0WNw5gLV1hKxh+J0cHg=; b=a2+6se5NE5YCtQgSIgmGggO9X11yDpgWarDtwJ79cFC8bOuZw81/EcfbwrjZCDpt3Y 9xmjCy7MaqO5TCMcPuw+CzPGpZv03djRF5/UC1m7Ad1y1UCa6jPIDTAxXIL3wcJo4Wpt ygMLU0/Ml86H1BKs7RD1MWAMZoOEknPSquYeIpecwJ+QLKpUlchnzghUMXlZp1FrHkvC WvPPkYr7qN3EpSNmACwoZLPPXl3uliXFr+LcN8usOMmCaaMw/uE7dtsEz44Se9DsuDob mqztP4ipj6dVoqFiX37VYltLayfSym5Gv3novnIj6+7wHw/vJ7oUYmJQx2UbYUYJgUHw L+oA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=k+gdvuXvbJqYsdIoijuKS7kF0WNw5gLV1hKxh+J0cHg=; b=GPlspcgaUTTLiM2HlexYQGSl2k6nR8ZodTsRbg1wuQXke+Ij4bs9aYGP2jk6+kOSXd 3F9BM/Km8u8xmv+AVibvLpbAElLL29kNVaYxz5xg0D17053hr6G+DYS9p6ikdwW87obm cp7wbORSMVFFeSwBt/htmXvjtdCRSyXg3sObbS4cNsgPiS3Lq6GpFQ8FeHG1vggq5ZP3 4FqKkUsDqLC9ElyGx8ovVLte+wPYdc6uCOdF7t3Uru+FeTVVO/nErGjk3aJP5ABFy5nN UPgkhR8CT5TPzN2ABy+aX+172cjt5efgR/+0K5x25MuJswa1IWOgUIgX1Dh8GOMFXbxa c8Pg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AIVw112orVngpOaH/ipPSJcE91arAKgAya+Ayim3F0brE6b+LKtsVVDg ECpHvhJO8Nu5YvFi
X-Received: by with SMTP id 55mr10417035qtu.202.1499772229379; Tue, 11 Jul 2017 04:23:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from macbook-pro-6.w50.lede.home ( []) by with ESMTPSA id n11sm11734178qtf.45.2017. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 11 Jul 2017 04:23:48 -0700 (PDT)
From: Ted Lemon <>
Message-Id: <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_4B419D93-83DC-40C7-90E0-A431A18CC0B9"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.3 \(3273\))
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2017 07:23:47 -0400
In-Reply-To: <>
Cc:, =?utf-8?B?T25kxZllaiBTdXLDvQ==?= <>
To: =?utf-8?B?UGV0ciDFoHBhxI1law==?= <>
References: <> <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3273)
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-session-signal-03.txt
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2017 11:23:52 -0000

On Jul 11, 2017, at 3:17 AM, Petr Špaček <> wrote:
> I feel that implications from switch to non-RR format are underestimated
> and following e-mail attempts to explain why I believe it is a bad idea.
> Please accept my apology for such long e-mail.

Petr, with all due respect, I did not see a counter-proposal here, and your comments seem to reflect a misunderstanding of what session-signaling is.

In fact, the opposite of what you said is true: if this were done as a normal query with EDNS0-like encapsulation, _then_ we would see problems, because session signaling messages would look more like DNS queries, and less like control messages.  This is not a desirable quality.

It's true that, for example, the DNS packet compression format would have to deal with this specially, but that would also be true if this were done EDNS0-style.   It's true that packet dumpers would have to deal with this specially, but that's also true if it's done EDNS0-style.   Etc.

It may be that there is a good point in your argument somewhere, but at the moment, I don't see one.   E.g., in your python example, yes, if this were an RR, not being able to plop it into your RR-handling switch would suck.   But it's not an RR, doesn't have the semantics of an RR, and if you plop it into your RR-handling switch, you're probably getting the semantics wrong.

So if you want to make this case, I think you need to be more specific about why this is a problem: when I think about how to implement this (which I have done, because I'm using it for dnssd), what you are advocating seems harder, not easier, than what is currently being proposed.