IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [lisp] Request for WG document - draft-farinacci-lisp-name-encoding

"Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com> Tue, 29 September 2020 19:31 UTC

Return-Path: <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
X-Original-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB0833A10FD for <lisp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 29 Sep 2020 12:31:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.311
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.311 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, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.213, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=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=joelhalpern.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 sdjBNfnxcTZ5 for <lisp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 29 Sep 2020 12:31:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailb1.tigertech.net (mailb1.tigertech.net [208.80.4.153]) (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 B5B9A3A0E8E for <lisp@ietf.org>; Tue, 29 Sep 2020 12:31:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailb1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C18dT3dNzz5bdCh; Tue, 29 Sep 2020 12:31:25 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=joelhalpern.com; s=2.tigertech; t=1601407885; bh=yp6axzREaxf7FRL3BsAHDkMpVW/qmIrsFhPzX7qMbI8=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=XDX9kqpCuTNzW3cGPHY56jywE2qG7D2AxOoRoEr+H7P5A6ivehijqAnK5Me896gwg 7fN5tu405VKqrPIRAmtaoccz/Xuyi/6gCOpNB3arEnjsrQclgt3OM5/k4u4qxqDxa1 8JcDoYNHfr6nMUx1ZRIibLVoZdtly9bfftUpSH+A=
X-Quarantine-ID: <zhMEue_S83jX>
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at b1.tigertech.net
Received: from [192.168.128.43] (209-255-163-147.ip.mcleodusa.net [209.255.163.147]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mailb1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4C18dS69h0z5bdCX; Tue, 29 Sep 2020 12:31:24 -0700 (PDT)
To: Dino Farinacci <farinacci@gmail.com>
Cc: "lisp@ietf.org list" <lisp@ietf.org>
References: <8ab7a055-3615-cf04-2749-446ecde2cc38@joelhalpern.com> <8A777782-AF51-48CA-936A-B6BD68C98334@gmail.com>
From: "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
Message-ID: <f6e19069-7df6-8507-67de-194edd9f625a@joelhalpern.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2020 15:31:23 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.12.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <8A777782-AF51-48CA-936A-B6BD68C98334@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lisp/8yd4sjFiTrSlkT60x1MS-sa-474>
Subject: Re: [lisp] Request for WG document - draft-farinacci-lisp-name-encoding
X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: List for the discussion of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol <lisp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/lisp>, <mailto:lisp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/lisp/>
List-Post: <mailto:lisp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:lisp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp>, <mailto:lisp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2020 19:31:27 -0000

Looking again at this draft, and at the example Dino points to, I think 
there is a basic problem with the work and the usage.

the problem is not a problem for the mapping system per se.  It is a 
problem for usage.

The draft does not define any mechanism for structuring, allocating, or 
otherwise managing the space of names.  It does not say "URIs".  It does 
not say "DNS names"  It syas "ASCII string, terminated by 0".

If there is to be standard usage of this, and if there is to be more 
than one such usage, how are collisions avoided?  It is not sufficient 
to say "just don't" as different problems may end up needing overlapping 
name spaces.  The hash usage (below) assumes that the solution is to 
prepend the string "hash:' on the front.  But that is not formally 
defined, and as such is not actually a reliable mechanism.
(Frankly, for the hashes I would prefer to use a different EID LCAF that 
carries the binary hash.)

I suspect that the people supporting this have expectations on how this 
will work.  But it seems sufficiently basic that the semantics, rather 
than the encoding, is where I would expect the WG to start.  Encodings 
are easy.

I will also acknowledge that as chair I have concerns about turning LISP 
into an arbitrary database system.  Our charter is a mapping system in 
support of routing.  I understand why the ECDSA keys need to be in 
there.  But I do not want to fall into the BGP trap of trying to solve 
every problem with the hammer in my hand.

Yours,
Joel

On 9/28/2020 10:48 AM, Dino Farinacci wrote:
>> As chair, I would really like to see something more than just +1.  For example, what do you see this as being useful for?
> 
> There are several Internet Drafts that show uses for distinguished names. Case in point is the draft-ietf-lisp-ecdsa-auth working group Internet Draft.
> 
> And as Albert said for labeling RLOCs. It makes it easier for operators to run and debug the overlay system.
> 
> Dino
> 
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email