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

[Peter Saint-Andre <[e-mail]>]

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 [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
>>>
>>
>>


-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/