IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-bellis-dnsext-multi-qtypes-08.txt

Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> Fri, 17 November 2023 11:52 UTC

Return-Path: <mellon@fugue.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 AA7B4C151067 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 17 Nov 2023 03:52:31 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.905
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.905 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, 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, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=fugue-com.20230601.gappssmtp.com
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 eVB0IcJxmOnk for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 17 Nov 2023 03:52:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-yw1-x1129.google.com (mail-yw1-x1129.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::1129]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F37B0C14CF1E for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Fri, 17 Nov 2023 03:52:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-yw1-x1129.google.com with SMTP id 00721157ae682-5a7afd45199so21654067b3.0 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Fri, 17 Nov 2023 03:52:27 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fugue-com.20230601.gappssmtp.com; s=20230601; t=1700221946; x=1700826746; darn=ietf.org; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=tNKqgpUHjlXnptEBSM7XhqCCIV9N7NNrIHN8b5vJi1k=; b=OK2Z/7OUVCLa5ug21WC5uWPVMXrZG3iATTzTIQlVZWjmesFueb6ZEUGN65Vl1w1ynG 06iQ+wHrcMQtspb4G+Mr26OZ5AP7rcWAyXpHchiS+J3lU/d/qVjW+sWwy5vaAQgPi7E7 1MxXNOIjCBdXdTI5cakevsnDXKu2RDq7S2vn5ogh4EvHB3PoVpLxgbVCJLuUDQ+wh0zN 6K2IcJEy2kiX/fzHrhMZRxNljDEhDPJCC/yG3uTsH+o+bl8kctDZ4crDuVhqmCzqobCc cotYHt3tGxfcAnCfS9xuIiqpIC1oWidkXAJMYusRLvgw6xM/dFSxTcKgj7+Sp3awmxoh VEBA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1700221946; x=1700826746; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=tNKqgpUHjlXnptEBSM7XhqCCIV9N7NNrIHN8b5vJi1k=; b=wnuDCgK2jr3y5Z1j4YCGMffoUhM/WC3UI2BodgSwI/5suq14unHXcbqgqgjmeTzqMY HNsfUOoBerGH6BMfyyuuFgrG4qGfZC4Ln41oKm4q1pIrNvRvLFJVASzA9ZLUeotFGTFX rck1MIb77+Y2A+8DSTkZkS6JOXwXIcrV5rUxH34RQGGv6tgMb7PfDg4Eg3jlJ684cclf JYgD8r944Pf/6JdpgUByJs8pYzbfukpgEXM+cA2+I2oYEZgiTIrEKAybMwVAZPpj4RPB kPWybeIe06ijt9GfJzahpYKgdunQsIIKU0ZsReTwGcZqqhBAI8oEvArp8Y5R4GXI4N1n G4pQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Ywa9JPSkEwNU1iVdce+HC1HhNo1niiwrQUgv/CEH3C0szWiGtOD jvs7nSR7IwjK4niOcibT7jUjySvqNnTP6gEyw/TT6P5bWZ0zoFl3SwQ=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IFM4MAAJJjjsIbHVKgavRzK8cCrshDvrp9X72d2wuB3FCvOK1UWXfH/zDYH+mdjdSP2KH1wA+QlpAIlH6oq7Bc=
X-Received: by 2002:a81:8a41:0:b0:5a7:b464:ff1a with SMTP id a62-20020a818a41000000b005a7b464ff1amr18061208ywg.6.1700221946398; Fri, 17 Nov 2023 03:52:26 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <169996260219.33611.6405129886775920165@ietfa.amsl.com> <0ecd7ce4-79d3-411e-9c7c-ee9602e8c534@desec.io>
In-Reply-To: <0ecd7ce4-79d3-411e-9c7c-ee9602e8c534@desec.io>
From: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2023 06:52:15 -0500
Message-ID: <CAPt1N1k9ZqfKO4WmMJpdAeVjeRc=WRD-6A19iUg5e23eiyWPSw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Peter Thomassen <peter@desec.io>
Cc: dnsop@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000279dc8060a57c5bb"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/aoYF40epuxMUGHXmCuYX_RZS4Nw>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-bellis-dnsext-multi-qtypes-08.txt
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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, 17 Nov 2023 11:52:31 -0000

That’s going to be a pretty sparse bitmap. Can you think of a specific
scenario where that makes the message shorter?

Op vr 17 nov 2023 om 06:50 schreef Peter Thomassen <peter@desec.io>

>
> On 11/14/23 12:50, internet-drafts@ietf.org wrote:
> > Abstract:
> >
> >     This document specifies a method for a DNS client to request
> >     additional DNS record types to be delivered alongside the primary
> >     record type specified in the question section of a DNS query.
> >
> > The IETF datatracker status page for this Internet-Draft is:
> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-bellis-dnsext-multi-qtypes/
>
> I think this draft proposal a reasonable method for requesting multiple
> record types.
>
> Section 3.2.1 has three occurrences of "SHOULD/MUST attempt to" do things,
> such as:
>
>     MUST attempt to return all specified RR types except where ...
>
> Under which circumstances is the "attempt" sufficient? (Is the attempt
> allowed to fail under circumstances beyond what's in the "except" clause?)
>
> Generally, my feeling is that both "MUST attempt" and "SHOULD attempt"
> actually are "SHOULD".
>
>
> In Section 3.2.3:
>
>     If the DNS client sets the "DNSSEC OK" (DO) bit in the query
>     then the server MUST also return the related DNSSEC records
>     that would have been returned in a standalone query for the
>     same QTYPE.
>
> That MUST is stronger than the "MUST attempt" for the rdata itself. I
> guess what's meant is something like "MUST return the related DNSSEC
> records for any returned RRsets, in the same way as they would have been
> returned ...".
>
> Also, "for the same QTYPE" is unclear, it might be misread to refer to the
> QTYPE appearing in the question section. I guess what's meant is "for the
> respective QTYPE".
>
>
> Regarding Section 3.1, I tend to agree with Paul's perspective on QTYPE
> encoding via bit map.
>
> Best,
> Peter
>
> --
> https://desec.io/
>
> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list
> DNSOP@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email