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 >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>
- Re: [port-srv-reg] Peter Saint-Andre's Discuss on… Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [port-srv-reg] Peter Saint-Andre's Discuss on… Joe Touch
- Re: [port-srv-reg] Peter Saint-Andre's Discuss on… Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [port-srv-reg] Peter Saint-Andre's Discuss on… Joe Touch
- Re: [port-srv-reg] Peter Saint-Andre's Discuss on… Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [port-srv-reg] Peter Saint-Andre's Discuss on… Joe Touch
- Re: [port-srv-reg] Peter Saint-Andre's Discuss on… Stuart Cheshire
- Re: [port-srv-reg] Peter Saint-Andre's Discuss on… Joe Touch
- Re: [port-srv-reg] Peter Saint-Andre's Discuss on… Jouni Korhonen
- Re: [port-srv-reg] Peter Saint-Andre's Discuss on… Jouni Korhonen
- Re: [port-srv-reg] Peter Saint-Andre's Discuss on… Korhonen, Jouni (NSN - FI/Espoo)