IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Joe Abley <jabley@hopcount.ca> Wed, 24 October 2018 09:30 UTC

Return-Path: <jabley@hopcount.ca>
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 4670512958B for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Oct 2018 02:30:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=hopcount.ca
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 xXvpkeF96yFC for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Oct 2018 02:30:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lj1-x229.google.com (mail-lj1-x229.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::229]) (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 BE159130DDB for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Wed, 24 Oct 2018 02:30:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lj1-x229.google.com with SMTP id x3-v6so4073980lji.13 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Wed, 24 Oct 2018 02:30:04 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=hopcount.ca; s=google; h=from:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=ll+RYt0Jq9iPM8GCrV1I45YWFdBnfTfpyP6O6tUkhGs=; b=HQLWpZN6pLbIqvvcP8sZbAwS0vD+A2jD/jElw0dBondFt8INEmp9pASVfBpsfK5bYs rgFv0eMqaw/CXReVu+HLyVUp2YXM4MJYB69SD0ofdLUQOe60t6qdJqaQg6fYLsxmp4iD PYP4jg4shTsCbTzsS4LlyXQKd9+f2TfgnmBdU=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=ll+RYt0Jq9iPM8GCrV1I45YWFdBnfTfpyP6O6tUkhGs=; b=m9r0brPfcl5M/jeDi6sBVpkgyNxTGrLNh73KP34hXtbbTqt/KTpkZU44sacAsFLwXG C+Fudlwmt5JDywi5IZimNOnZTzvHmN59/3WGORRQ1z+ZI4H8uQLBMV4k4Bh16aU/Bzjc kS5Bj2VXaUNwmt9wbJTe73V/M90c0rP1G46QtElDCFZwtmWcLIha3uu26Ng1lp8vVgLk oI+eGIVEYisj70y9Kypn1XANXVqol0L2vVOEzVG75b6DDFBr5YTDNWU+8gvESM0IpBO0 gncHmQ6LYukGnzzkPBKG/AZHheRr3HLP2CcN+eimTOBEvf0hCioG4hTiCtnOmCJMSiSn ZR6g==
X-Gm-Message-State: AGRZ1gJv3z39IVmZx044ig6wg8ssmzopEBOL1egYoa4XTVYi9XtpWYKK TAvP5K8a+nE8yKc2TzFTnd8Vhm8jEpyOyvK44Tp9435PBdU=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AJdET5d00QQqpH/ruH31txe/NDCtszgVOd4WlLLOMszPdkbfYKAavf++v6zw2yJMlxQF1+zqUssmzXUDvvCM/TFdl60=
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:9bd3:: with SMTP id w19-v6mr1352917ljj.67.1540373402748; Wed, 24 Oct 2018 02:30:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from unknown named unknown by gmailapi.google.com with HTTPREST; Wed, 24 Oct 2018 02:30:02 -0700
From: Joe Abley <jabley@hopcount.ca>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
References: <BC2CDF40-4FF0-4111-88B7-04969491D2E0@dukhovni.org>
In-Reply-To: <BC2CDF40-4FF0-4111-88B7-04969491D2E0@dukhovni.org>
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2018 02:30:02 -0700
Message-ID: <CAJhMdTONFZ=DRvLscUdiUF6e1ZfUM2DsuRjpWLt+9wUL+4MOSQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/psic-TYX3PoctTcABW8fsmELbNc>
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 09:30:08 -0000

On Oct 24, 2018, at 11:01, Viktor Dukhovni <ietf-dane@dukhovni.org> wrote:

> And yet, here and there I see mention of having to take care to avoid "loops",
> but loops are impossible in a monotone strictly decreasing sequence.

Surely any sequence of labels that terminates with a pointer to any
label within that same sequence is an existence proof of such a loop.
The degenerate case is a single label terminated by a pointer to
itself.


Joe

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email