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

Scott Johnson <scott@spacelypackets.com> Wed, 26 June 2024 02:41 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 DC734C14F5F4; Tue, 25 Jun 2024 19:41:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.907
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.907 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, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] 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 TRNFph4dhMRy; Tue, 25 Jun 2024 19:41:35 -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 2F306C1840EE; Tue, 25 Jun 2024 19:41:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from scott (helo=localhost) by www.spacelypackets.com with local-esmtp (Exim 4.96) (envelope-from <scott@spacelypackets.com>) id 1sMIae-0007ed-2e; Wed, 26 Jun 2024 02:40:57 +0000
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2024 02:40:56 +0000
From: Scott Johnson <scott@spacelypackets.com>
To: "Sipos, Brian J." <Brian.Sipos@jhuapl.edu>
In-Reply-To: <126832862de047c389651d7e4f39eb04@jhuapl.edu>
Message-ID: <c586799a-478c-1fef-0656-3c8c72452bfb@spacelypackets.com>
References: <fa28794e-d02b-aa93-56c8-082a3472c6e4@spacelypackets.com> <44BBD57B-752B-47FA-B5A5-D4F37BE60E9A@isc.org> <b3f42856-9460-2fa2-1088-185fda441f51@spacelypackets.com> <F2BD591F-8512-4E3E-ABA2-3DF3F34372CB@isc.org> <16835c41-0e6c-bde4-d197-847928171e55@spacelypackets.com> <047a01dac6b8$43d70ca0$cb8525e0$@gmail.com> <57ca71b8-aa29-8a07-5154-e6b9c44bc64a@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> <126832862de047c389651d7e4f39eb04@jhuapl.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="-2112415152-512659473-1719369656=:24657"
Message-ID-Hash: N764NIPV7VLZMKU5T2HX3E66SMZ2S5RA
X-Message-ID-Hash: N764NIPV7VLZMKU5T2HX3E66SMZ2S5RA
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: [EXT] [dtn] 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/nFjh9WxDNumlRm8GUslI8doW84o>
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 Brian,

On Tue, 25 Jun 2024, Sipos, Brian J. wrote:

> Scott,
> I see two major issues with your current proposal.
>
> The first is that a CLA is more than just a specific transport, it is 
> also a profile and likely a whole protocol above that transport. For 
> example, there are multiple versions of "TCPCL" which behave differently 
> and have different capabilities.

This sounds like an implementation issue?  Notwithstanding,
given that there are pre RFC9174 versions of TCPCL in the wild which are 
associated with BPv6, perhaps we can just add a BP version flag to 
disambiguate, like I did with versions of IP.

> So just saying "I support 
> TCP-over-IPv6" falls short of indicating what a node is actually capable 
> of and whether or not I can expect to successfully make contact and 
> transfer bundles with that peer.
>

The result is that the CLA RRTYPE value now reads LTP-v4-v6 or 
TCP-v6-v7, or, in the future, perhaps QUIC-v6-v8, if such a CLA is 
written.  The syntax would read:

<CLA protocol>-<IP Version>-<BP Version>

This still fits with the defined wire and presentation types of CLA in the 
draft, while addressing the issue you raised.  Sound good?

> The second is that I think it's actually more appropriate to use DNS 
> Service Discovery (DNS-SD) as a mechanism to register CLAs over DNS. I 
> have drafted a profile of this in [1] which does not even require any 
> new code point allocations;

I do not see requesting new RRTYPEs as an undue administrative burden, so 
this is not much of a selling point for me.  DNSOP was quite helpful in 
arriving at good verbiage to describe wire and presentation formats, the 
clarification of which was the purpose of the draft.

> the existing DNS-SD and service name 
> registries [2] already have what is needed for a node to register 
> listening CLAs as services. The DNS-SD also works for both unicast and 
> multicast DNS. In the specific profile of [1] there is a requirement 
> that only BP routers register themselves, but that is more of a 
> convenience than a strict necessity.

Nothing in my draft prevents you from using this mechanism. I prefer to 
avoid ambiguity in parsing a TXT record (which are used for _many_ 
purposes), and lowering of burden upon network operators in deploying more 
complicated zone files/extensions to their nameservers. Both methods can 
co-exist without impeding each other.

>
> One possible extension to the DNS-SD profile is to define a service 
> parameter ("bpnodeid" or similar) which would allow exposing the node's 
> administrative EID in the DNS-SD registration. This opens the door to 
> some security considerations about authenticating ownership of that EID, 
> but it is a possible mechanism on a closed and trusted network.

I would consider DNSSEC signing sufficient to ensure authenticity of a 
DNS record.  Would you not?

> Another possibility is to use existing CERT RR [3] to store certificates 
> asserting ownership of one or more EIDs, which are already defined as a 
> PKIX profile in RFC 9174 [4]. My main concern with just having a bare 
> EID (or part of an EID in this case, just the IPN node number) in DNS is 
> that there is no way to assign a chain of trust to some authority of BP 
> node naming.

This is an interesting notion to use the CERT RR, but as stated, it is not 
a huge challenge to add relevant/useful RRTYPEs.  If TCPCLv4 is already 
using this record, then perhaps an additional one should be created for 
this purpose, if DNSSEC does not provide the necessary assertation of 
responsibility.  As I stated in my response to Rick, I see the possiblity 
of security context (CTX) and BPSEC public key (BSEC) records as well, in 
a future draft.  What are your thoughts on distribution of that 
information through this channel?

>
> Thanks for consideration of this feedback,

Thank you for providing it.  I see my proposal as a "path of least 
resistance" to expedite a certain level of functionality which enables 
easier application development.  With these RRTYPEs a user can plug a 
simple, standard domain name into an BP native application, which queries 
DNS for connection info which is passed to a BPA via an API.  I see no 
conflict with your work in my proposal.

Sincerely,
ScottJ

> Brian S.
>
> [1] https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-sipos-dtn-edge-zeroconf-01.html#section-3
> [2] https://www.iana.org/assignments/service-names-port-numbers/service-names-port-numbers.xhtml
> [3] https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4398.html
> [4] https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9174.html#section-4.4.2
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Scott Johnson <scott@spacelypackets.com>
>> Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2024 5:57 AM
>> To: Erik Kline <ek.ietf@gmail.com>
>> Cc: dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>; sburleig.sb@gmail.com; dtn@ietf.org
>> Subject: [EXT] [dtn] Re: [DNSOP] Re: IPN and CLA RRTYPEs to support Bundle
>> Protocol RFC9171
>>
>> APL external email warning: Verify sender forwardingalgorithm@ietf.org before
>> clicking links or attachments
>>
>> Hi Erik,
>>
>> Cross posted to DTN list for any such discussion, if they so desire.
>> The draft in question is here:
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-johnson-dns-ipn-cla/
>>
>> Thanks,
>> ScottJ
>>
>> On Tue, 25 Jun 2024, Erik Kline wrote:
>>
>>> Speaking as the responsible AD for DTN, I think the DTN working group
>>> should probably have a discussion about what it wants to do (if
>>> anything) vis. DNS RRs.
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jun 25, 2024 at 08:27 Scott Johnson <scott@spacelypackets.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>       Hi Mark,
>>>
>>>       On Tue, 25 Jun 2024, Mark Andrews wrote:
>>>
>>>      >
>>>      >
>>>      >> On 25 Jun 2024, at 16:36, Scott Johnson
>>>       <scott@spacelypackets.com> wrote:
>>>      >>
>>>      >> Hi Mark,
>>>      >>
>>>      >> Noted and changed.  Good stuff, thanks.  Updated draft
>>>       (04) at datatracker using that verbiage:
>>>      >>
>>>       https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-johnson-dns-ipn-cla/
>>>      >>
>>>      >> Is it appropriate to add an acknowledgments section or
>>>       co-authors at this point?
>>>      >
>>>      > I’m not fussed either way.
>>>
>>>       (05) of the draft adds a "Contributors" section.
>>>
>>>      >
>>>      >> As well, should I be asking for WG adoption (DNSOP or
>>>       DTN WG), or as an Informational document, is Individual
>>>       submission sufficient?
>>>      >
>>>      > I’ll leave that for the chairs to answer.
>>>
>>>       Ack.  Thank you so much for your time and attention to this
>>>       document.
>>>
>>>       ScottJ
>>>
>>>      >
>>>      >> Thanks,
>>>      >> ScottJ
>>>      >>
>>>      >>
>>>      >> On Tue, 25 Jun 2024, Mark Andrews wrote:
>>>      >>
>>>      >>> Made the IPN description more specific.
>>>      >>>
>>>      >>>
>>>      >>>                                           Wire format
>>>       encoding shall
>>>      >>> be an unsigned 64-bit integer in network order.
>>>       Presentation format, for these
>>>      >>> resource records are either a 64 bit unsigned decimal
>>>       integer, or two 32 bit
>>>      >>> unsigned decimal integers delimited by a period with
>>>       the most significant 32 bits
>>>      >>> first and least significant 32 bits last.  Values are
>>>       not to be zero padded.
>>>      >>>
>>>      >>>> On 25 Jun 2024, at 15:22, Scott Johnson
>>>       <scott@spacelypackets.com> wrote:
>>>      >>>>
>>>      >>>> Hi Scott,
>>>      >>>>
>>>      >>>> Wire format of 64 bit unsigned integer it is for IPN.
>>>      >>>> Updated draft (03) incorporating all changes posted
>>>       at:
>>>      >>>>
>>>       https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-johnson-dns-ipn-cla/
>>>      >>>>
>>>      >>>> Let me know if you see anything else, Mark, and
>>>       thanks!
>>>      >>>>
>>>      >>>>
>>>      >>>> ScottJ
>>>      >>>>
>>>      >>>>
>>>      >>>> On Mon, 24 Jun 2024, sburleig.sb@gmail.com wrote:
>>>      >>>>
>>>      >>>>> I've lost lock on the ipn-scheme RFC, but my own
>>>       assessment is that always sending a single 64-bit unsigned
>>>       integer would be fine.  The application receiving the
>>>       resource can figure out whether or not it wants to condense
>>>       the value by representing it as two 32-bit integers in
>>>       ASCII with leading zeroes suppressed and a period between
>>>       the two. Internally it's always going to be a
>>>       64-bitunsigned integer, from which a 32-bit "allocator"
>>>       number can be obtained by simply shifting 32 bits to the
>>>       right; if the result is zero then we're looking at an
>>>       old-style IPN node number.
>>>      >>>>>
>>>      >>>>> Scott
>>>      >>>>>
>>>      >>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>      >>>>> From: Scott Johnson <scott@spacelypackets.com>
>>>      >>>>> Sent: Monday, June 24, 2024 8:26 PM
>>>      >>>>> To: Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org>;
>>>       sburleig.sb@gmail.com
>>>      >>>>> Cc: dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>
>>>      >>>>> Subject: Re: [DNSOP] IPN and CLA RRTYPEs to support
>>>       Bundle Protocol RFC9171
>>>      >>>>>
>>>      >>>>> Hi Mark,
>>>      >>>>>
>>>      >>>>>
>>>      >>>>> On Tue, 25 Jun 2024, Mark Andrews wrote:
>>>      >>>>>
>>>      >>>>>>
>>>      >>>>>>
>>>      >>>>>>> On 25 Jun 2024, at 10:32, Scott Johnson
>>>       <scott@spacelypackets.com> wrote:
>>>      >>>>>>>
>>>      >>>>>>> Hi Mark,
>>>      >>>>>>>
>>>      >>>>>>> On Tue, 25 Jun 2024, Mark Andrews wrote:
>>>      >>>>>>>
>>>      >>>>>>>> An obvious correction “LTP--v6” -> “LTP-v6”
>>>      >>>>>>>
>>>      >>>>>>> Aha!  Good eye.
>>>      >>>>>>>
>>>      >>>>>>>>
>>>      >>>>>>>> For IPN why isn’t the wire format two network 64
>>>       bit integers?  That is 16 bytes.  Also 2^64-1 is 20
>>>       characters so 2 64-bit numbers separated by “." is 41
>>>       characters.  It’s not clear where then 21 comes from.
>>>      >>>>>>>
>>>      >>>>>>> EID is the basic unit of IPN naming, which is
>>>       indeed two 64 bit integers separated by a ".". We are
>>>       seeking to represent only the node-nbr component of an EID,
>>>       as the service-nbr component is loosely analagous to a UDP
>>>       or TCP port, for which there is one publicly defined
>>>       service in the registry, and a collection of space agencies
>>>       who lay claim to another chunk of them:
>>>      >>>>>>>
>>>       https://www.iana.org/assignments/bundle/bundle.xhtml#cbhe-service-
>> num
>>>      >>>>>>> bers As such, there is no gain in including the
>>>       second 64-bit
>>>      >>>>>>> integer, representing service-nbr in the DNS
>>>       records, and indeed, a loss of utility on the application
>>>       level.
>>>      >>>>>>>
>>>      >>>>>>> The node-nbr component is presently, under RFC7116,
>>>       a 64 bit unsigned integer.  There is a draft from the DTN
>>>       WG currently making it's way through the IESG which will
>>>       amend the IPN naming scheme. Perhaps I should add it to
>>>       normative references?
>>>      >>>>>>>
>>>       https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dtn-ipn-update/
>>>      >>>>>>>
>>>      >>>>>>> In effect it splits the node-nbr component into
>>>       two-32 bit integers; Allocator Identifier and Node Number
>>>       in the "Three-Element Scheme-Specific Encoding" of Section
>>>       6.1.2 over the above.  Section 6.1.1 describes the
>>>       "Two-Element Scheme-Specific Encoding" method which retains
>>>       the use of a single 64-bit integer.  Thus, a single 64 bit
>>>       integer (20 characters) or two 32-bit integers (10
>>>       characters each) delimited by a "."
>>>      >>>>>>> makes 21 characters maximum.  This preserves
>>>       forwards compatibility with the proposed amended scheme,
>>>       and does no harm if the scheme fails to achieve
>>>       standardization.
>>>      >>>>>>
>>>      >>>>>> Or just 8 bytes on the wire with both possible input
>>>       formats described.
>>>      >>>>>> Machines using the records will just be converting
>>>       ASCII values to a
>>>      >>>>>> 64 bit integer.  We may as well transmit it as
>>>       that.  Input validation
>>>      >>>>>> will need to do the conversion anyway to ensure both
>>>       fields will fit
>>>      >>>>>> into 32 bits in the “.” separated case and 64 bits
>>>       in the single value case.
>>>      >>>>>> Length along is not sufficient to prevent undetected
>>>       overflows.  The
>>>      >>>>>> only thing you need to determine is which format is
>>>       the initial
>>>      >>>>>> canonical presentation format.  That can be changed
>>>       with a later
>>>      >>>>>> update if needed.
>>>      >>>>>
>>>      >>>>> I am tagging in Scott Burleigh, co-author of RFC9171
>>>       on this point for clarification.
>>>      >>>>> Section 4.2.5.1.2 of same indicates:
>>>      >>>>>
>>>      >>>>> "Encoding considerations:
>>>      >>>>> For transmission as a BP endpoint ID, the
>>>       scheme-specific part of a URI of the ipn scheme SHALL be
>>>       represented as a CBOR array comprising two items. The first
>>>       item of this array SHALL be the EID's node number (a number
>>>       that identifies the node) represented as a CBOR unsigned
>>>       integer.
>>>      >>>>> The second item of this array SHALL be the EID's
>>>       service number (a number that identifies some application
>>>       service) represented as a CBOR unsigned integer. For all
>>>       other purposes, URIs of the ipn scheme are encoded
>>>       exclusively in US-ASCII characters."
>>>      >>>>>
>>>      >>>>> Having already established that we are transmitting
>>>       the node-nbr component only, and not a full EID, I am not
>>>       sure we are restricted to using only US-ASCII.  ScottB,
>>>       your opinion?  CBOR might also be an option, but that would
>>>       place a higher burden upon implementers, I think.  Integer
>>>       notation for wire format is fine by me.
>>>      >>>>>
>>>      >>>>>>
>>>      >>>>>>>> Limit CLA characters to Letter Digit Hyphen rather
>>>       than the full ASCII range.
>>>      >>>>>>>
>>>      >>>>>>> It is possible for a node to support multiple CLAs
>>>       on the same IP
>>>      >>>>>>> address and node number.  Will this change allow
>>>       multiple, comma
>>>      >>>>>>> delimited values to be expressed in the CLA
>>>       record?  If so, can you
>>>      >>>>>>> point me to an example so I can get the verbiage of
>>>       the draft right?
>>>      >>>>>>> If not, what do you recommend (in addition to my
>>>       defining that in the
>>>      >>>>>>> draft)?  I like the idea of limiting the usable
>>>       characters.
>>>      >>>>>>
>>>      >>>>>> Personally I would just use a TXT record wire format
>>>       with the
>>>      >>>>>> additional constraint that the values are restricted
>>>       to Letter, Digits
>>>      >>>>>> and interior Hyphens.  The input format matches the
>>>       TXT record with
>>>      >>>>>> the above character value constraints.  The
>>>       canonical presentation
>>>      >>>>>> form is space separated, unquoted, unescaped ASCII.
>>>       This allow for
>>>      >>>>>> long records to be split over multiple lines.
>>>       Descriptive comments in the zone file.
>>>      >>>>>> This take one extra octet over using comma separated
>>>       values.
>>>      >>>>>
>>>      >>>>> Sold to the man from ISC :)  This part works great;
>>>       thank you!  Updated draft pushed to datatracker at
>>>       https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-johnson-dns-ipn-cla/
>>>      >>>>>
>>>      >>>>> Thanks,
>>>      >>>>> Scott
>>>      >>>>>
>>>      >>>>>
>>>      >>>>>>
>>>      >>>>>> e.g.
>>>      >>>>>>
>>>      >>>>>> example inputs
>>>      >>>>>>
>>>      >>>>>> @ CLA ( TCP-V4 ; TCP over IPv4
>>>      >>>>>>    TCP-V6 ) ; TCP over IPv6
>>>      >>>>>>
>>>      >>>>>> @ CLA “TCP-V4” TCP-V6
>>>      >>>>>>
>>>      >>>>>> Wire
>>>      >>>>>>
>>>      >>>>>> 06 ’T’ ‘C’ ‘P’ ‘-‘ ‘V’ ‘4’ 06 ’T’ ‘C’ ‘P’ ‘-‘ ‘V’
>>>       ‘6’
>>>      >>>>>>
>>>      >>>>>> Canonical presentation
>>>      >>>>>>
>>>      >>>>>> @ CLA TCP-V4 TCP-V6
>>>      >>>>>>
>>>      >>>>>>
>>>      >>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>      >>>>>>> Scott
>>>      >>>>>>>
>>>      >>>>>>>>
>>>      >>>>>>>> Mark
>>>      >>>>>>>>
>>>      >>>>>>>>> On 25 Jun 2024, at 08:19, Scott Johnson
>>>       <scott@spacelypackets.com> wrote:
>>>      >>>>>>>>>
>>>      >>>>>>>>> Hi All,
>>>      >>>>>>>>>
>>>      >>>>>>>>> After reading the recent discussion about WALLET,
>>>       I am hesitant to jump into the fray here, but this plainly
>>>       is the correct group to help me get my logic and syntax
>>>       right, so here goes:
>>>      >>>>>>>>>
>>>      >>>>>>>>> I submitted requests to IANA for IPN and CLA
>>>       RRTYPEs, these representing the missing datasets necessary
>>>       to make a BP overlay network connection from data found by
>>>       DNS queries.
>>>      >>>>>>>>>
>>>      >>>>>>>>> For those not familiar, BP is a store and forward
>>>       mechanism generally used in high latency situations where
>>>       there does not exist constant end-to-end connectivity.  It
>>>       was designed for deep space networking, however has network
>>>       segments and application uses which overlay the terrestrial
>>>       Internet.  There will arise similar use cases on the Moon
>>>       (in the reasonably near future) and Mars whereby low
>>>       latency, constant connectivity exists, thereby making use
>>>       of DNS in these situations viable.
>>>      >>>>>>>>>
>>>      >>>>>>>>> My Expert Reviewer asked for an i-d, to clarify
>>>       the requests, and that said i-d be sent to this list for
>>>       review.
>>>      >>>>>>>>>
>>>      >>>>>>>>> Please find the approptiate draft here:
>>>      >>>>>>>>>
>>>       https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-johnson-dns-ipn-cla/
>>>      >>>>>>>>>
>>>      >>>>>>>>> Relevant IANA requests:
>>>      >>>>>>>>>
>>>       https://tools.iana.org/public-view/viewticket/1364843
>>>      >>>>>>>>>
>>>       https://tools.iana.org/public-view/viewticket/1364844
>>>      >>>>>>>>>
>>>      >>>>>>>>> I have the BP community also reviewing this, but
>>>       they are generally in agreement as to use.
>>>      >>>>>>>>>
>>>      >>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>      >>>>>>>>> Scott M. Johnson
>>>      >>>>>>>>> Spacely Packets, LLC
>>>      >>>>>>>>>
>>>      >>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>      >>>>>>>>> DNSOP mailing list -- dnsop@ietf.org To
>>>       unsubscribe send an email
>>>      >>>>>>>>> to dnsop-leave@ietf.org
>>>      >>>>>>>>
>>>      >>>>>>>> --
>>>      >>>>>>>> Mark Andrews, ISC
>>>      >>>>>>>> 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
>>>      >>>>>>>> PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742              INTERNET:
>>>       marka@isc.org
>>>      >>>>>>>>
>>>      >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>      >>>>>>>> DNSOP mailing list -- dnsop@ietf.org To
>>>       unsubscribe send an email to
>>>      >>>>>>>> dnsop-leave@ietf.org
>>>      >>>>>>
>>>      >>>>>>
>>>      >>>>>> --
>>>      >>>>>> Mark Andrews, ISC
>>>      >>>>>> 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
>>>      >>>>>> PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742              INTERNET:
>>>       marka@isc.org
>>>      >>>>>>
>>>      >>>>>>
>>>      >>>>>
>>>      >>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>      >>>>> DNSOP mailing list -- dnsop@ietf.org
>>>      >>>>> To unsubscribe send an email to dnsop-leave@ietf.org
>>>      >>>
>>>      >>>
>>>      >>> --
>>>      >>> Mark Andrews, ISC
>>>      >>> 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
>>>      >>> PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742              INTERNET:
>>>       marka@isc.org
>>>      >>>
>>>      >>> _______________________________________________
>>>      >>> DNSOP mailing list -- dnsop@ietf.org
>>>      >>> To unsubscribe send an email to dnsop-leave@ietf.org
>>>      >
>>>      >
>>>      > --
>>>      > Mark Andrews, ISC
>>>      > 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
>>>      > PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742              INTERNET:
>>>       marka@isc.org
>>>      >
>>>      > _______________________________________________
>>>      > DNSOP mailing list -- dnsop@ietf.org
>>>      > To unsubscribe send an email to
>>>       dnsop-
>> leave@ietf.org_______________________________________________
>>>       DNSOP mailing list -- dnsop@ietf.org
>>>       To unsubscribe send an email to dnsop-leave@ietf.org
>>>
>>>
>>>
>