Re: [dnsext] draft-levine-dnsextlang-02

Miek Gieben <miek@miek.nl> Thu, 29 March 2012 11:55 UTC

Return-Path: <dnsext-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: namedroppers-archive-gleetwall6@lists.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-namedroppers-archive-gleetwall6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5095F21F89B3; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 04:55:38 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ietf.org; s=ietf1; t=1333022138; bh=k6ap2R6WTBkwgmDWv9IeV7c8x3C9fPoqdbihPkhrWW4=; h=Date:From:To:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version:In-Reply-To: Subject:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help: List-Subscribe:Content-Type:Sender; b=jWTQEFQFv/FMS4Db5Ljurbxg1JTWSN2cHcQI2QnoV408/VVUQG7OEB+uWrfjpjA/y Ds8TYTBgsBXEHGnWed8x9oHzpdb38fGLC0VrR6oN16yE/CkVCRKaq9Fvfk6IIFYj/M 5EJPrDUD4ZRiq2LnCpMOSYaTu4aUg+Bz35eaq5d0=
X-Original-To: dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC9A821F89B7 for <dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 04:55:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.357
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.357 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.243, BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lKNihMppcgVs for <dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 04:55:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from elektron.atoom.net (cl-201.ede-01.nl.sixxs.net [IPv6:2001:7b8:2ff:c8::2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7277421F89AB for <dnsext@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 04:55:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by elektron.atoom.net (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 23FBB3FEB4; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 13:55:30 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 13:55:30 +0200
From: Miek Gieben <miek@miek.nl>
To: dnsext list <dnsext@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <20120329115529.GD17832@miek.nl>
Mail-Followup-To: dnsext list <dnsext@ietf.org>
References: <20120329111837.GB17832@miek.nl> <alpine.LSU.2.00.1203291225120.3931@hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LSU.2.00.1203291225120.3931@hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk>
User-Agent: Vim/Mutt/Linux
X-Home: http://www.miek.nl
Subject: Re: [dnsext] draft-levine-dnsextlang-02
X-BeenThere: dnsext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: DNS Extensions working group discussion list <dnsext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dnsext>, <mailto:dnsext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsext>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext>, <mailto:dnsext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============5994567891568749375=="
Sender: dnsext-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: dnsext-bounces@ietf.org

[ Quoting <dot@dotat.at> in "Re: [dnsext] draft-levine-dnsextlan..." ]
> > * NSEC3 has a salt length which isn't used in the text representation of the
> >   record. How is this handled?
> 
> There should probably be a qualifier for a length prefix on hex data, as
> there is for base64.

Can you just say "this is length of the NEXT item"? Or does it need to be
generic "this is the length of item <NAME of ITEM>, which is more of a pointer.
 
> HIP RDATA is horrible. It would be slightly easier if the length fields
> prefixed the data they describe. The non-standard base64 restriction is
> ugly. The rendezvois servers should probably be listed in separate RRs of
> a different type, which would also solve the base64 problem. I think that
> awkward RRtypes like this should have special case handling, e.g. describe
> the RDATA as a single field of HIP type, or just leave it to RFC 3597
> generic representation.

Agreed, using 3597 syntax for such ugly RRs is probably the best.

> Ideally in the future RRDATA layouts will be simpler than this.

Well, an idea I have floating in my mind is: if your (new) RR can not
be described in terms of dnsextlang, you should think of a different
syntax. Not supporting the HIP record would help in that regard.

> > * The IPSECKEY RR uses some internal subtyping: if "gatewaytype" is 0 there is no
> >   gateway. If it is 1 or 2 its an IP address and if its 3 the gateway is a
> >   domain name. How to encode that?
> 
> Again I think this has to be handled in special case code. Really they
> should have used a different RR type for each layout.

As you said, why not avoid this whole mess and use 3597?

> Another awkward case is the variable-length IPv6 address field in A6
> records, but that has been deprecated forcefully enough that it is no
> problem to handle with RFC 3597 generic layout.

Are we now creating a hall of shame for badly designed RRs? :)

 Regards,

-- 
    Miek Gieben
_______________________________________________
dnsext mailing list
dnsext@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext