Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-yao-dnsop-accompanying-questions-04.txt

"Jiankang Yao" <yaojk@cnnic.cn> Wed, 20 September 2017 07:45 UTC

Return-Path: <yaojk@cnnic.cn>
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 762081323B4 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Sep 2017 00:45:54 -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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 nzALNxUg4ZhM for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Sep 2017 00:45:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cnnic.cn (smtp13.cnnic.cn [218.241.118.13]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3409A126E64 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Sep 2017 00:45:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from healthyao-PC (unknown [218.241.103.239]) by ocmail02.zx.nicx.cn (Coremail) with SMTP id AQAAf0A5QNCYHMJZFREKAA--.8353S2; Wed, 20 Sep 2017 15:45:28 +0800 (CST)
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2017 15:45:27 +0800
From: "Jiankang Yao" <yaojk@cnnic.cn>
To: "Richard Gibson" <rgibson@dyn.com>
Cc: dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>
Reply-To: yaojk <yaojk@cnnic.cn>
References: <150570474802.613.6489161595724212264@ietfa.amsl.com>, <CAC94RYbqkTFcK_cN8o6wXsxq6htBkaRHoGrCDiZ8bWvXexMstQ@mail.gmail.com>
X-Priority: 3
X-Has-Attach: no
X-Mailer: Foxmail 7.0.1.92[cn]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <2017092015452073799670@cnnic.cn>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_001_NextPart710141677311_=----"
X-CM-TRANSID: AQAAf0A5QNCYHMJZFREKAA--.8353S2
X-Coremail-Antispam: 1UD129KBjvJXoW3Ar1UXFyxXF1rtw1UJF13Jwb_yoW7ur48pF W3Kr95KrykXrykGw1kG348WF1j93yfJrW7JFn5Gw1vv3s8uF1qvF18tF45ZFW7uFyft3y2 qw1UXw1kWa98ZFJanT9S1TB71UUUUU7qnTZGkaVYY2UrUUUUjbIjqfuFe4nvWSU5nxnvy2 9KBjDU0xBIdaVrnRJUUUPab7Iv0xC_Kw4lb4IE77IF4wAFF20E14v26r1j6r4UM7CY07I2 0VC2zVCF04k26cxKx2IYs7xG6rWj6s0DM7CIcVAFz4kK6r1j6r18M28lY4IEw2IIxxk0rw A2F7IY1VAKz4vEj48ve4kI8wA2z4x0Y4vE2Ix0cI8IcVAFwI0_Xr0_Ar1l84ACjcxK6xII jxv20xvEc7CjxVAFwI0_Gr0_Cr1l84ACjcxK6I8E87Iv67AKxVWxJr0_GcWl84ACjcxK6I 8E87Iv6xkF7I0E14v26rxl6s0DM2AIxVAIcxkEcVAq07x20xvEncxIr21l5I8CrVAYj202 j2C_Jr0_Gr1l5I8CrVAKz4kIr2xC04v26r1j6r4UMc02F40E42I26xC2a48xMcIj6xIIjx v20xvE14v26r1j6r18McIj6I8E87Iv67AKxVWUJVW8JwAm72CE4IkC6x0Yz7v_Jr0_Gr1l F7xvr2IYc2Ij64vIr41lFcxC0VAYjxAxZF0Ew4CEw7xC0wCY02Avz4vE14v_GF4l42xK82 IYc2Ij64vIr41l4I8I3I0E4IkC6x0Yz7v_Jr0_Gr1lx2IqxVAqx4xG67AKxVWUGVWUWwC2 0s026x8GjcxK67AKxVWUGVWUWwC2zVAF1VAY17CE14v26r1Y6r17MIIYrxkI7VAKI48JMI IF0xvE2Ix0cI8IcVAFwI0_Jr0_JF4lIxAIcVC0I7IYx2IY6xkF7I0E14v26r1j6r4UMIIF 0xvE42xK8VAvwI8IcIk0rVWrZr1j6s0DMIIF0xvEx4A2jsIE14v26r1j6r4UMIIF0xvEx4 A2jsIEc7CjxVAFwI0_Jr0_Gr1l6VACY4xI67k04243AbIYCTnIWIevJa73UjIFyTuYvjxU gVbkDUUUU
X-CM-SenderInfo: x1dryyw6fq0xffof0/
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/wpet6k7LL5yPCvZPpSKC-1LTGDI>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-yao-dnsop-accompanying-questions-04.txt
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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, 20 Sep 2017 07:45:54 -0000

Dear Richard Gibson,

     Thanks a lot for your kind review and questions.

     some comments are below inline.




Jiankang Yao

From: Richard Gibson
Date: 2017-09-19 10:48
To: dnsop
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-yao-dnsop-accompanying-questions-04.txt
I have some questions about this draft.


How should responders populate the COUNT fields when one record answers multiple accompanying questions? For example, assume example.com has an MX record but no A or AAAA (the latter two thus being covered by an authority section SOA):
QUESTION example.com. IN MX
AQ example.com. IN A
AQ example.com. IN AAAA


ANSWER example.com. 3600 IN MX 10 mail.example.net.
AUTHORITY example.com. 3600 IN SOA …
                    example.com. 3600 IN SOA … 
ADDITIONAL . 0 CLASS4096 OPT ???


In a more general sense, how are responders to generate—and how are initiators to interpret—responses in which it is not clear which question any given response record corresponds to?

 
[Jiankang Yao] 
   The responders will put the query result of main question first, then Accompanying Question 1, Accompanying Question 2 in the answer, authority or additional section. It means that the responders will put the results for main question first, then Accompanying Question 1, Accompanying Question 2, one by one in order.

   The  initiators will also interpret the result in the answer, authority or additional section, one question by one question in order, main question first, then Accompanying Question 1, Accompanying Question 2. The interpretation will base on the value of 
ANCOUNT, ARCOUNT, NSCOUNT, and AQ-ANCOUNT, AQ-ARCOUNT, AQ-NSCOUNT.

In your example above,  
ANCOUNT=1, ARCOUNT=1, NSCOUNT=0;
AQ1-ANCOUNT=0,   AQ1-ARCOUNT=0, AQ1-NSCOUNT=1;
AQ2-ANCOUNT=0, AQ2-ARCOUNT=0, AQ1-NSCOUNT=1

so the initiators will know:
the result for main question is:     

     ANSWER example.com. 3600 IN MX 10 mail.example.net.
     AUTHORITY 
    ADDITIONAL . 0 CLASS4096 OPT ???

the result for accompanying question 1 is: 

     ANSWER 
    AUTHORITY example.com. 3600 IN SOA …
    ADDITIONAL 

the result for accompanying question 2 is: 

   ANSWER 
   AUTHORITY example.com. 3600 IN SOA …
   ADDITIONAL 

 




Section 3 defines the prefix field of an accompanying question as "a domain name with the form of a dot or a sequence of labels ending with a pointer"... could you clarify that "the form of a dot" refers to the root domain name (i.e., a single null label with wire format 0x00)?
[Jiankang Yao] 
sorry for confusion words. it means  a single null label .


 

In section 4, what is meant by "the responder assembles the prefix with the main domain name"? Wire-format domain names are necessarily fully-qualified, whether or not they end with compression pointers. Is the operation to be interpreted as something like "if the prefix is the DNS root domain, treat it as the QNAME"? If so, I think such special processing is unnecessary, because it's already possible to reference the QNAME directly with a compression pointer.
[Jiankang Yao] 
thanks, You are right. I will clarify the words.

 

Why require accompanying question names to match or be subdomains of the QNAME? It precludes potentially useful queries like QNAME=www.example.com. accompanied by prefix=static.example.com., and prohibiting them doesn't prevent out-of-bailiwick queries anyway.
[Jiankang Yao] 
currently the use cases for accompanying questions are the same domain names with different typs (A and AAA) or different sub domain names (TLSA record: _443._tcp.www.example.com  ).

If we can find some strong use cases for  queries like QNAME=www.example.com. accompanied by prefix=static.example.com, we may consider to adjust the design.

 


Section 5 references a "not been implemented, too many accompanying-questions." response... what would that response look like?
[Jiankang Yao] 
Here, I think that it need a new rcode value for it.



Best Regards.
Jiankang Yao
 




On Sun, Sep 17, 2017 at 11:19 PM, <internet-drafts@ietf.org> wrote:


A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Domain Name System Operations WG of the IETF.

        Title           : A DNS Query including A Main Question with Accompanying Questions
        Authors         : Jiankang Yao
                          Paul Vixie
                          Ning Kong
                          Xiaodong Li
        Filename        : draft-yao-dnsop-accompanying-questions-04.txt
        Pages           : 11
        Date            : 2017-09-17

Abstract:
   This document enables DNS initiators to send a main question
   accompanying with several related questions in a single DNS query,
   and enables DNS responders to put the answers into a single DNS
   response.  This extension enables a range of initiators to look up
   "X, or failing that, Y" in a better way than both current
   alternatives.  This mechanism can reduce the number of DNS round-
   trips per application work-unit.


The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-yao-dnsop-accompanying-questions/

There are also htmlized versions available at:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-yao-dnsop-accompanying-questions-04
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-yao-dnsop-accompanying-questions-04

A diff from the previous version is available at:
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-yao-dnsop-accompanying-questions-04


Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop