IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Drip] [dnsdir] Dnsdir telechat review of draft-ietf-drip-auth-46

Di Ma <madi@juicybun.cn> Sat, 03 February 2024 01:08 UTC

Return-Path: <madi@juicybun.cn>
X-Original-To: tm-rid@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tm-rid@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F2D48C14F6FE; Fri, 2 Feb 2024 17:08:43 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.908
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.908 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lcyy8ppm2ArZ; Fri, 2 Feb 2024 17:08:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from out28-64.mail.aliyun.com (out28-64.mail.aliyun.com [115.124.28.64]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BA90FC14F6FB; Fri, 2 Feb 2024 17:08:30 -0800 (PST)
X-Alimail-AntiSpam: AC=CONTINUE; BC=0.125898|-1; CH=green; DM=|CONTINUE|false|; DS=CONTINUE|ham_regular_dialog|0.0831397-0.00233497-0.914525; FP=0|0|0|0|0|-1|-1|-1; HT=ay29a033018047212; MF=madi@juicybun.cn; NM=1; PH=DS; RN=6; RT=6; SR=0; TI=SMTPD_---.WMDKx8j_1706922506;
Received: from smtpclient.apple(mailfrom:madi@juicybun.cn fp:SMTPD_---.WMDKx8j_1706922506) by smtp.aliyun-inc.com; Sat, 03 Feb 2024 09:08:27 +0800
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3774.300.61.1.2\))
From: Di Ma <madi@juicybun.cn>
In-Reply-To: <8D83CB5B-4768-4219-9DC8-CA3064A90489@rfc1035.com>
Date: Sat, 03 Feb 2024 09:08:16 +0800
Cc: Geoff Huston via Datatracker via dnsdir <dnsdir@ietf.org>, Di Ma via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-drip-auth.all@ietf.org, last-call@ietf.org, tm-rid@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <49D9B80A-3141-4D4D-A9EE-BC5450730FCB@juicybun.cn>
References: <170676614829.19316.8910353000351670136@ietfa.amsl.com> <8D83CB5B-4768-4219-9DC8-CA3064A90489@rfc1035.com>
To: Jim Reid <jim@rfc1035.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3774.300.61.1.2)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tm-rid/KcIdruKQ73yTkpN4bTjy00cgtbo>
Subject: Re: [Drip] [dnsdir] Dnsdir telechat review of draft-ietf-drip-auth-46
X-BeenThere: tm-rid@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: Drone Remote Identification Protocol <tm-rid.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tm-rid>, <mailto:tm-rid-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tm-rid/>
List-Post: <mailto:tm-rid@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tm-rid-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tm-rid>, <mailto:tm-rid-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 03 Feb 2024 01:08:44 -0000

> 
> Thanks for the suggestion. We have to agree to disagree here. A normative reference to RFC1035 is unhelpful IMO. There's lots of DNS stuff which isn’t in RFC1035 that (probably) will be used by DRIP: IPv6, EDNS0, TSIG, CERT RRs, DNSSEC, dynamic update, notify, ixfr, extended error reporting, etc, etc.


Yes indeed.  What I am getting at is to differentiate classic UDP DNS from DSO in terms of operation model, not those extensions to RFC1035 context.

> I think it’s impractical and unnecessary to list them all. Or replace the RFC each time the next new DNS shiny to come along gets adopted in DRIP - DELEG records for example.

Agreed.

> 
> My concern about including a normative reference to RFC1035 is vendors/developers who would take that literally. ie Have DNS code which only supports RFC1035 *and nothing else*.


Understood.

Your consideration is making sense here.

Di

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email