Re: new RRTYPEs, was DNSSEC architecture vs reality

Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com> Wed, 14 April 2021 18:26 UTC

Return-Path: <nico@cryptonector.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 AA4263A1AA0 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 14 Apr 2021 11:26:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.118
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.118 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, 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 (1024-bit key) header.d=cryptonector.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 HfBFEhn-6mfZ for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 14 Apr 2021 11:26:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from donkey.elm.relay.mailchannels.net (donkey.elm.relay.mailchannels.net [23.83.212.49]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1D9973A1A9E for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 14 Apr 2021 11:26:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Sender-Id: dreamhost|x-authsender|nico@cryptonector.com
Received: from relay.mailchannels.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by relay.mailchannels.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id C3DDA922654; Wed, 14 Apr 2021 18:26:49 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from pdx1-sub0-mail-a44.g.dreamhost.com (100-96-16-47.trex.outbound.svc.cluster.local [100.96.16.47]) (Authenticated sender: dreamhost) by relay.mailchannels.net (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 45FC6921D6D; Wed, 14 Apr 2021 18:26:49 +0000 (UTC)
X-Sender-Id: dreamhost|x-authsender|nico@cryptonector.com
Received: from pdx1-sub0-mail-a44.g.dreamhost.com (pop.dreamhost.com [64.90.62.162]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384) by 100.96.16.47 (trex/6.1.1); Wed, 14 Apr 2021 18:26:49 +0000
X-MC-Relay: Neutral
X-MailChannels-SenderId: dreamhost|x-authsender|nico@cryptonector.com
X-MailChannels-Auth-Id: dreamhost
X-Chemical-Reign: 55ea4c3a4f5e2ed4_1618424809546_3655514422
X-MC-Loop-Signature: 1618424809546:2917669246
X-MC-Ingress-Time: 1618424809545
Received: from pdx1-sub0-mail-a44.g.dreamhost.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pdx1-sub0-mail-a44.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 00AAC8C6F1; Wed, 14 Apr 2021 18:26:49 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=cryptonector.com; h=date :from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:in-reply-to; s=cryptonector.com; bh=ftUM3DZDa0oZ6E qgPTm2e/8iKUk=; b=h596RkK1FTJ1DARFFwsz13vfpifZEvTVQR6PcE3f1Z2L+8 XomEjlIwt7F2bw5ZV6D/lM2W8Rccf7a4Ch58zpSb3SNgSsoIkTNWFBzm1zjpw88e MTZEQ3Hymy9pPmdbkh5B1bneE59m3TpLfEU5pSzsd98t2MRRvXYcMNXDwMZss=
Received: from localhost (unknown [24.28.108.183]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: nico@cryptonector.com) by pdx1-sub0-mail-a44.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 049568C7A5; Wed, 14 Apr 2021 18:26:47 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2021 13:26:44 -0500
X-DH-BACKEND: pdx1-sub0-mail-a44
From: Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>
To: Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com>
Cc: John R Levine <johnl@taugh.com>, IETF general list <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: new RRTYPEs, was DNSSEC architecture vs reality
Message-ID: <20210414182644.GO9612@localhost>
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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAMm+LwhEmiQOYtP807n2Gm2MKq7cGhMoCB_hkJxPZCQ9uatW8Q@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/o_P3kMlU4k5QMUStPM-jMLbJiB8>
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 18:26:56 -0000

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.

Nico
--