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

Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu> Tue, 15 November 2011 09:06 UTC

Return-Path: <touch@isi.edu>
X-Original-To: port-srv-reg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: port-srv-reg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE9CA21F8FEA; Tue, 15 Nov 2011 01:06:36 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.968
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.968 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.369, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 RRHZxo2xJU2L; Tue, 15 Nov 2011 01:06:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from darkstar.isi.edu (darkstar.isi.edu [128.9.128.127]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A064A21F8FE7; Tue, 15 Nov 2011 01:06:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [130.129.66.136] (dhcp-4288.meeting.ietf.org [130.129.66.136]) (authenticated bits=0) by darkstar.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id pAF9631o029936 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 15 Nov 2011 01:06:07 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <4EC22B79.9010608@isi.edu>
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2011 01:06:01 -0800
From: Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:8.0) Gecko/20111105 Thunderbird/8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Jouni Korhonen <jouni.korhonen@nsn.com>
References: <CAE7F639.105DA%jouni.korhonen@nsn.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAE7F639.105DA%jouni.korhonen@nsn.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-MailScanner-From: touch@isi.edu
Cc: draft-ietf-dime-rfc3588bis@tools.ietf.org, "port-srv-reg@ietf.org" <port-srv-reg@ietf.org>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, dime-chairs@tools.ietf.org
Subject: Re: [port-srv-reg] Peter Saint-Andre's Discuss on draft-ietf-dime-rfc3588bis-29: (withDISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: port-srv-reg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion of updates to service name and transport protocol port registry <port-srv-reg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/port-srv-reg>, <mailto:port-srv-reg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/port-srv-reg>
List-Post: <mailto:port-srv-reg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:port-srv-reg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/port-srv-reg>, <mailto:port-srv-reg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2011 09:06:36 -0000

Tomorrow I'm open after 3pm.

Thurs I'm open *except* for lunch.

(I have sessions I want to attend, but this will take priority)

Let me know what works.

Joe


On 11/15/2011 12:58 AM, Jouni Korhonen wrote:
>
> I and Glen are around. Though it seems social is next on my agenda. Tomorrow
> first morning session is the only one where I need to attend to.
>
> - Jouni
>
>
>
> On 11/15/11 6:53 AM, "ext Peter Saint-Andre"<stpeter@stpeter.im>  wrote:
>
>> Thanks, Joe. Let's see if our DIME friends are available. :)
>>
>> On 11/15/11 12:50 PM, Joe Touch wrote:
>>> 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 port-srv-reg@ietf.org 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:stpeter@stpeter.im] Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2011 5:10
>>>>>>>> AM To: The IESG Cc: dime-chairs@tools.ietf.org;
>>>>>>>> draft-ietf-dime-rfc3588bis@tools.ietf.org 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
>>>>>> Port-srv-reg@ietf.org
>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/port-srv-reg
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>