Re: [port-srv-reg] Peter Saint-Andre's Discuss on draft-ietf-dime-rfc3588bis-29: (withDISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Joe Touch <[e-mail]>]

I'm here if it's useful to meet - today is wide open...

Joe

On 11/14/2011 8:44 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> My DISCUSS is still unresolved. Would it be productive to chat
> face-to-face in Taipei this week?
>
> On 9/25/11 1:47 AM, Joe Touch wrote:
>> Hi, all,
>>
>> TLS and DTLS are not transport protocols. The SRV spec specifies only
>> the following syntax:
>>
>> _sname._tname.example.net
>>
>> sname is a service name
>> tname is a transport protocol
>>
>> Service names currently define all protocols from L5-L7 as a single,
>> non-parseable name. E.g., HTTP, HTTPS, etc. There are variants for
>> application protocols over SOAP over HTML, etc. But there aren't dots
>> separating the names (dots aren't permitted in service names, nor are
>> underscores), and there's no structure to those names.
>>
>> I'm not aware of any documents that use other syntax that ever
>> proposed to update RFC 2782. The few exceptions (e.g., of specifying
>> SRV entries with nonstandard syntax) we've found to date have not been
>> deployed, and we're expecting to issue an update to those docs to
>> correct or deprecate them.
>>
>> In this case, the approach I would expect - which is used much more
>> commonly - is:
>>
>> _diameter-s._tcp.example.net -- this means "diameter over TLS"
>> _diameter-s._udp.example.net -- this means "diameter over DTLS"
>>
>> Diameter-s, diameters, or any such new service name would be used to
>> indicate the secure variant of diameter.
>>
>> This differs from the recent NAPTR application protocol tag. The
>> following was the summary of updates from that discussion on
>> DIME-extended-naptr, FWIW:
>>
>> (1) State that the S-NAPTR Service/Protocol tags are unrelated to the
>> IANA Service Name and Transport Protocol Port Number Registry.
>>
>> (2) State that the Application Protocol tag must not be parsed in any
>> way by the querying application or resolver. The delimiter (".") is
>> present in the tag to improve readability and does not imply a
>> structure or namespace of any kind.
>>
>> (3) State that the choice of delimiter (".") for the Application
>> Protocol tag follows the format of existing S-NAPTR registry entries
>> but this does not imply that that it shares semantics with any other
>> RFCs that have created registry entries using the same format.
>>
>> Joe
>>
>> On Sep 22, 2011, at 9:14 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>>
>>> [Adding [e-mail] for expert insight...]
>>>
>>> Context for the ports and services folks:
>>>
>>> During IESG review of draft-ietf-dime-rfc3588bis-29, I discovered that
>>> this specification appears to be using 'tls' and 'dtls' as SRV Proto
>>> values (and that it does not add 'diameter' to the ports and services
>>> registry). This strikes me as problematic, but feedback from your team
>>> would be helpful.
>>>
>>> Thanks!
>>>
>>> On 9/22/11 7:31 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>>>> On 9/22/11 2:43 AM, Korhonen, Jouni (NSN - FI/Espoo) wrote:
>>>>> Peter,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message----- From: ext Peter Saint-Andre
>>>>> [mailto:[e-mail]] Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2011 5:10
>>>>> AM To: The IESG Cc: [e-mail];
>>>>> [e-mail] Subject: Peter
>>>>> Saint-Andre's Discuss on draft-ietf-dime-rfc3588bis-29: (withDISCUSS
>>>>> and COMMENT)
>>>>>
>>>>> Peter Saint-Andre has entered the following ballot position for
>>>>> draft-ietf-dime-rfc3588bis-29: Discuss
>>>>>
>>>>> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to
>>>>> all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to
>>>>> cut this introductory paragraph, however.)
>>>>>
>>>>> Please refer to
>>>>> http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more
>>>>> information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> DISCUSS:
>>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>
>>>>> RFC 3588 used DNS SRV Proto values of 'tcp' and 'sctp' for the SRV
>>>>> Service of 'diameter'. 3588bis seems to add two more Proto values:
>>>>> 'tls' and 'dtls'. However, RFC 6335, which defines updated rules for
>>>>> the ports and services registry, allows only TCP, UDP, SCTP, and DCCP
>>>>> as transport protocols. Furthermore, this specification does not
>>>>> register the 'diameter' SRV Service value in accordance with RFC
>>>>> 6335. Because these values were not defined or registered by
>>>>> draft-ietf-dime-extended-naptr, I think they need to be defined
>>>>> here.
>>>>>
>>>>> [JiK]: In extended-naptr I-D we have a note we came up with a lengthy
>>>>> discussion (and eventually to an agreement) with Joe Touch. How would
>>>>> RFC3588bis be different from extended-naptr in this case regarding
>>>>> the use of "diameter" and "dtls"?
>>>>>
>>>>> The S-NAPTR Application Service and Protocol tags defined by this
>>>>> specification are unrelated to the IANA Service Name and Transport
>>>>> Protocol Port Number Registry (see [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-iana-ports]).
>>>>>
>>>>> [JiK]: RFC3588bis only introduces "diameter.dtls" in addition what is
>>>>> already in extended-naptr I-D.
>>>>
>>>> That's not how I read it. 3588bis says:
>>>>
>>>> 3. If no NAPTR records are found, the requester directly queries for
>>>> SRV records '_diameter._sctp'.realm, '_diameter._dtls'.realm,
>>>> '_diameter._tcp'.realm and '_diameter._tls'.realm depending on
>>>> the requesters network protocol capabilities.
>>>>
>>>> Those are not S-NAPTR Application Service and Protocol tags, they are
>>>> SRV Service and Proto values.
>>>>
>>>> We might need to follow up separately with the Port Expert Team.
>>>
>>> <snip/>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Port-srv-reg mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/port-srv-reg
>>
>
>