Re: [DNSOP] Clarification question: compression pointers always to names earlier in the packet?

Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> Wed, 24 October 2018 19:52 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 2E6D612785F for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Oct 2018 12:52:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com
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 rgriPSZmq2Ko for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Oct 2018 12:52:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qt1-x835.google.com (mail-qt1-x835.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::835]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AD22C124C04 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Wed, 24 Oct 2018 12:52:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qt1-x835.google.com with SMTP id g10-v6so7072290qtq.6 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Wed, 24 Oct 2018 12:52:50 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=CmPnbj1pZuK+Ve4OBmKKYIFTgkh/hdTk5GJpCqRlqEU=; b=MJIkh12Qmqsj/B1w96xTPDQd1P6rdqt7G6cvxExRIADJifMylENfpGRfgdSCFPme4o vl0PtHRV7wK49hl7sF2WlAJ0gNVLPHCMJQJIaSEZkGzR/PWFg3j9jxF3R9Q2dSN1lwic UGjJsDeixopBYIW2S0OFXPOlzBZdHbQ4u0JcYmEPrLhFzT4h7bbAMWTWdaSgrC0x7AmA E/YJnwYTB7550tr4y+kIdrrQA2P03p4JCPDUyQrNx8/EZ9WCbjA7rcGrr6Omi/Si1lxi jiIE2TEJX66n7/GfTjt6vMdO6UyaNlkBCJgNcdEncop2YvHqSBY1RVCm278mGpGaYk4z yYCg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=CmPnbj1pZuK+Ve4OBmKKYIFTgkh/hdTk5GJpCqRlqEU=; b=XwwZBSXlIHBzH4v0FT3VI6MdHXSjrsG9a2kqmEQvbQTG+OPRrxZH8an/7KtXllQnbn 8yq8OK/D9o1CDrCvRmwTurvfgCVycqAvPoSAtEElmg9m8YHdM9H05Og729ei8DOiLXkN CgfUmy9p1AyNtMrTJFD1Wc/jbIn+GRiUbM41uTuY7DYYr69h9/MJfjQhHHFUPrceWNRJ xyGABVgVCvUmlP3a0nApF5dw6j0U+5h+5e8PlC8mnwcdq5MB/dswYFiVUebdzlgRKn17 j6NMt3Zm4B1o2GCFsq6ppGvb0erurmnbjxMFZRyHndvOBbMiabr2i8xLI7gqKy+7odMf zaSw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AGRZ1gL9Og2BkXaOPooOZd72TyGsqnnflXzIhM/kJSD5ZyCbK489WFm4 6spielPo4nogdho8kCCvDEXO4LZ2XSoU0+43ocOl6W86LPA=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AJdET5cNtahKWLgdSVXhaSA9TEPLTfMlviRwu1I5XXesvWU4jW7qV361fPIvlF73f/Uvx6vKX3H3iMbcZDYWE8zg+1M=
X-Received: by 2002:ad4:50c2:: with SMTP id e2mr3781028qvq.201.1540410769734; Wed, 24 Oct 2018 12:52:49 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <BC2CDF40-4FF0-4111-88B7-04969491D2E0@dukhovni.org> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1810241135130.24450@grey.csi.cam.ac.uk> <20181024124831.610d7521@glaurung.nlnetlabs.nl>
In-Reply-To: <20181024124831.610d7521@glaurung.nlnetlabs.nl>
From: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2018 15:52:12 -0400
Message-ID: <CAPt1N1=r2fMs8UJh9eM6BZHYXEwJgYzKDVqs5J7MZhS1n5Zx6A@mail.gmail.com>
To: martin@opennetlabs.com
Cc: Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at>, dnsop WG <dnsop@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000bd17e00578fed4ab"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/i5i3SGUA8LarSheG7usO-HCZqZg>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Clarification question: compression pointers always to names earlier in the packet?
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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, 24 Oct 2018 19:52:53 -0000

Is there ever a valid reason to have a pointer to a pointer, though?   This
is dead easy to detect.

On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 6:48 AM Martin Hoffmann <martin@opennetlabs.com>
wrote:

> Tony Finch wrote:
> >
> > Note that limiting the overall length of the name isn't enough,
> > because a pointer can loop without making the name longer.
>
> You are, of course, right.
>
> Kind regards,
> Martin
>
> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list
> DNSOP@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
>