Re: new RRTYPEs, was DNSSEC architecture vs reality

Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@gmail.com> Wed, 14 April 2021 18:58 UTC

Return-Path: <d3e3e3@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D1D43A1BAF for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 14 Apr 2021 11:58:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.847
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.847 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 rMhF69ZLcPaX for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 14 Apr 2021 11:58:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-io1-xd2a.google.com (mail-io1-xd2a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d2a]) (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 A7CA23A1BAC for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 14 Apr 2021 11:58:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-io1-xd2a.google.com with SMTP id h141so13314841iof.2 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 14 Apr 2021 11:58:03 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=WWY8fl1Notm92K8lFMeSsVducaqSkUoMa02mPKyiaws=; b=hoH1wCVMPrsqN1rhqp3YlAH6eTUvVckW1jdg063ZYSfo8mMZU/cUbG0f5VDr5z3CnS 3Il2QLxSO3WLNNodJqpCLXkXHPTkOpe4IJ5u/qAcjEc830D3LaflCESbu1Dejfr4bn7f OrJndJXBcK/82L2uGEJvVBQMSl9s4df2XPegUr/EmFuIuPQ4nESvBODfIbjotlrglgJi jvYdCT5TKzQTJVHqLG+ZusWuuRDKx0PKdH67Ez2BDSWU5DjRfx5gvY0t6yJnZOHtAE0p 8unIYGHLuQLxowjv+C9kvms2YQJ2wdT+eHRrQbldohvqudLV31WHJ9lTAfWTOPzNLQqz DZDg==
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=WWY8fl1Notm92K8lFMeSsVducaqSkUoMa02mPKyiaws=; b=GRYuA/9unoJ8mBuBSgQS24/9q3PNN7W/WmgbywlijfNr5tRWkulHk/hVe/PoJFA8fT L2ywCYgZOoq+Yr1A9gkaGh7Iekz6l82R2Ikd39iFIpTpSfRtpkFUyNusTe7+SvuIEm9p kLfcb7NmX5rvoHV7wA8mPTtyD99C0Pl2M1/kFQUbMBz8GxYvrqWuvctx7fL9r+lDsguT f0EYoZZ7eO1W9KODC1/Ysz/uoB0b0m+rb45VOrn+REW/o9PTScUFLPhBI5ni9m0eSkjW zIA001oghIsCDBi3lhpEhH12/fApv53eEwitP5UAyZUa6/jjd8MLNsyWXcohtvVh5dcr nmMg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533LJ2v9XaQ6iltcrMotOj+xzFxzg1ThpFxziV6Qpkp70c24jS4o TkBsiYqztkxBBDPgTX9wrVEENGAkNq7I2bQPRbH7DfKc438=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzWq9QTkACVRkObgJWs6i91x4Bo/HMjYeUPBWJUqg29DiJraedl2FazP4dRuCU7+ul5uXU1ZKf7h/Y4LzQG7V4=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6602:20d9:: with SMTP id 25mr19399798ioz.87.1618426682045; Wed, 14 Apr 2021 11:58:02 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20210413015000.9297272C47BA@ary.qy> <C8C39247-226E-4C78-88E8-3AC215F2FF21@isc.org> <1c90249a-a9ad-52dd-bbc5-5e4bc6e6bdf@taugh.com> <CAMm+LwhEmiQOYtP807n2Gm2MKq7cGhMoCB_hkJxPZCQ9uatW8Q@mail.gmail.com> <20210414182644.GO9612@localhost>
In-Reply-To: <20210414182644.GO9612@localhost>
From: Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2021 14:57:50 -0400
Message-ID: <CAF4+nEGkrDOs-e3VSce2idHNpydfktBeoiPR9vrLu004x2N3ow@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: new RRTYPEs, was DNSSEC architecture vs reality
To: Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>
Cc: Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com>, John R Levine <johnl@taugh.com>, IETF general list <ietf@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/3P9lhIPDW-4SiGOcylzA_ZrUY1U>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2021 18:58:08 -0000

On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 2:27 PM Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 12:48:05PM -0400, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
> > I did propose a TXT record that could be used for unstructured config
> > and the DNS folk rejected it (as they always do). So I really don't
> > care how upset they get about the uses their comment field is being
> > put to.
>
> If we were starting from scratch we might well not bother with
> non-textual RDATA, or domainname compression (we'd zlib-compress all
> message payloads).
>
> As tempting as just-one-last-new-RRtype would be, a TXT-like RR with a
> sub-type prefix of its textual RDATA, the fact that there would be no
> easy way to select for RRs of this type and with a particular sub-type
> prefix means we'd probably end up being unhappy with it.  Knowing little
> else about this, I'm inclined to believe that that "the DNS folk
> rejected it" with good reason.

Hey, as long as you are going with a sub-type, and the like, might as
well revive this RR, which already has type 40 allocated:

https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-eastlake-kitchen-sink-02

Thanks,
Donald
===============================
 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
 2386 Panoramic Circle, Apopka, FL 32703 USA
 d3e3e3@gmail.com

> Nico