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

Scott Johnson <scott@spacelypackets.com> Fri, 28 June 2024 09:12 UTC

Return-Path: <scott@spacelypackets.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 E5D9FC14F708; Fri, 28 Jun 2024 02:12:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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 1MrRhwoyXbmA; Fri, 28 Jun 2024 02:12:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from www.spacelypackets.com (www.spacelypackets.com [IPv6:2602:fdf2:bee:feed::ee]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange ECDHE (P-256) server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DE2FBC14F6FD; Fri, 28 Jun 2024 02:12:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from scott (helo=localhost) by www.spacelypackets.com with local-esmtp (Exim 4.96) (envelope-from <scott@spacelypackets.com>) id 1sN7e9-0000BP-1C; Fri, 28 Jun 2024 09:11:57 +0000
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2024 09:11:57 +0000
From: Scott Johnson <scott@spacelypackets.com>
To: Rick Taylor <rick@tropicalstormsoftware.com>
In-Reply-To: <38A5475DE83986499AEACD2CFAFC3F9802737395E2@tss-server1.home.tropicalstormsoftware.com>
Message-ID: <8b864323-a43d-3861-17e6-9f422b2d4592@spacelypackets.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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
Message-ID-Hash: PGHWCJM4573WYA522D3CSTU34K3PQRAO
X-Message-ID-Hash: PGHWCJM4573WYA522D3CSTU34K3PQRAO
X-MailFrom: scott@spacelypackets.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: 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/dSLgLYlUNYYEX1hRnvEzt567Q4I>
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>

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
> To unsubscribe send an email to dnsop-leave@ietf.org