[DNSOP] Re: Introducing Relative Label for DNS

Ben <ben@yocto.com> Mon, 22 July 2024 08:54 UTC

Return-Path: <ben@yocto.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 9B789C14CEE4 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 22 Jul 2024 01:54:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, T_SPF_HELO_TEMPERROR=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 ncwE9D5YdOAx for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 22 Jul 2024 01:54:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx2.yocto.eu (ns2.yoctodns.com [136.144.225.232]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 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 356BAC14F6AD for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Mon, 22 Jul 2024 01:54:01 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Authentication-Results: mx2.yocto.eu; auth=pass smtp.mailfrom=ben@yocto.com
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2024 08:53:59 +0000
From: Ben <ben@yocto.com>
To: dnsop@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <81C445E0-5C5C-4325-825C-9A9FBCA66F73@strandkip.nl>
References: <690B1EDE-7DCF-4E33-9688-97295F9D842D@gmail.com> <81C445E0-5C5C-4325-825C-9A9FBCA66F73@strandkip.nl>
Message-ID: <de715a55cd1d1238285b52993fe2900a@yocto.com>
X-Sender: ben@yocto.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Spamd-Bar: --
Message-ID-Hash: LTT6HTTDULN3QHCJIEL5OTCMHP5O3DLC
X-Message-ID-Hash: LTT6HTTDULN3QHCJIEL5OTCMHP5O3DLC
X-MailFrom: ben@yocto.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
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc4
Precedence: list
Subject: [DNSOP] Re: Introducing Relative Label for DNS
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <dnsop.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/lBcAqgl6bLYGmfVO-mxQHOqqQUE>
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>

Joe Abley schreef op 2024-07-21 23:44:
> On 21 Jul 2024, at 15:54, Edward Lewis <eppdnsprotocols@gmail.com> 
> wrote:
> 
>> I don’t think there’s any good to come from shrinking an in-memory 
>> size of the zone this way.  Saving space, sure, but I don’t think the 
>> cost in code complexity will favorable.
> 
> This sounds right to me.
Oh, I just now see the "in-memory" word in this citation. Yeah, I don't 
say a DNS server has to keep the \x40 in memory. It may replace all 
\x40's directly before loading it into memory. It is the same in my 
system. In the database everything is stored with or without \x40, but 
everything is converted to absolute when loaded into the memory of the 
DNS server.
> 
>> I see this as a UI issue.  A (secure) dynamic update client can elect 
>> to append the zone name (from that section of the message) where there 
>> is no ending dot.  In a zone file, $ORIGIN can be used at will (but 
>> doing so for each name would be overkill).
> 
> To be honest the whole idea of relative names feels like it has caused 
> nothing but trouble. I'm not sure why we would want to encourage more 
> of it.
Extended labels aren't used by everyone. Mostly, because almost none of 
them are defined, or the one that was defined, Binary Labels, was 
deprecated. I definitely will use relative labels, as I already use them 
now, but I want to do this in a standardized way. If \x40 is registered, 
I will use \x40. If I use it and it will be registered by somebody else 
for another purpose, my system is not compliant anymore. I'm okay with 
adding more sections to the draft that tell considerations for using 
this label. For example, software that supports it, can always use it in 
record names, because record names don't have anything to do with record 
types. For record data, like compression we can allow it for all types 
in RFC 1035 and think about how to handle it with unknown types or types 
outside RFC 1035.
> 
After all, I still think we have to add this label. If that means I 
should add some "Don't use this label, except when you totally know what 
you are doing.", sure.
> 
> Joe
Ben
> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list -- dnsop@ietf.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to dnsop-leave@ietf.org