Subject: DNSIND meeting minutes - 98.08.27

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1998 17:18:13 -0700 (PDT)

DNSIND meeting minutes - 98.08.27

Agenda bashing:
  I-N-D
  Binary Labels
  Dname
Added
  EDNS
  TSIG

There was no work since LA on any of I, N or D.

Binary Labels
	As discussed in LA, longest match was dropped from the Binary
Labels draft and moved to eDNS. The draft also reflected the extended
label type from eDNS. There was a discussion of whether the current
dotted quad decimal syntax restriction to requiring all four octets
should be dropped. One person felt that dropping it was useful for
representing decimal prefixes. All other opinions in the room thought
that the clause requiring all four octets was still important and
the suggestion was withdrawn.

	Some minor edits were needed and Matt will have the next draft
available by september 4. This is expected to go to last call.

DNAME
	The draft was changed to remove the suggestion for wildcard
CNAME RRs for compatability, but instead includes an algorithm that
creates specific CNAMEs when required.

	There was a discussion of rule 2 in the draft for
processing. The issue was why was a specific loop detection algorithm
specified. Several people believed that the statement in 1035 saying
that only a limited effort to resolve a query applied was sufficient
and that any further discussion here was over specification. After a
discussion, it was agreed that the specific algorithm would be removed.

	The draft will be recycled by september 4. Because the changes
were considered substantial, some review and comment period will be
needed before last call, but this should be well before Orlando.

eDNS
	A number of wording changes that have been accumulated since
the last draft just before this IETF. Paul has made the changes, and
briefly presented these. Among the issues was that the opcode for eDNS
and local compression were the same, so the eDNS draft will be changed
to not conflict. Two others were more than wordsmith, and those were
discussed in the meeting.

	Some vendors were concerned with the complexity of
implementing all of eDNS as a single lump, but were very interested in
the larger UDP packet capability. Three ways to move ahead were put
forth:
    a) move forward with eDNS with big UDP and with the eastlake UDP draft
    b) remove the UDP work from eDNS and just move the eastlake draft forward
    c) split eDNS into two parts, and have version 0 have just the UDP parts.

After a discussion, it was decided to move forward with c). It was
pointed out that having both parts of eDNS described in the same
document would require that all parts of document move forward at the
same time. Because of this, it was agreed that the current draft be
broken in two documents, one describing eDNS, the OPT record and base
options, and one describing extended option from the current draft.

	It was pointed out that if the longest match match hits a
wildcard label, the return value was not clearly specified. It was
decided that the return value should stop at the wildcard, as this was
as close to current DNS operation as was possible.

The draft will be divided and both new drafts will be ready by
september 4. Since there is little change in the functioning, it was
thought that this should go to last call soon afterwards.

TSIG
	Mark Andrews presented a flaw in the time synchronization
logic between the client server. If the time offset was in one
direction it worked with the time window specified, in the other
offset direction, even a one second offset caused the authentication
to fail. The proposal was to take the two 32 bit dates that existed in
the current spec and reallocate them. In the new scheme, 16 bits are
allocated to offset distance in seconds, and the other 48 bits will be
allocated to seconds time. This also removed the 2038 epoch issue from
TSIG. WG discussion agreed that this was a good approach. The
discussion then moved to how the choice for the offset was done. It
was agreed that the offset is a user set parameter, with the 300
second recommendation from the current draft.

The draft will be recycled to address this issue by september
4. Assuming mailing list agreement, the draft will go to last call.

I N D conformance testing
	Randy is extremely concerned that no progress has happened on
the I N and D drafts. Randy will resend comments on N and D to Paul,
and Paul will make the changes. Olafur agreed to lead a push to get
implementation and compatibility information on these documents for
Orlando.

Randy also said that there would be a co-chair added to the working
group, and that should be completed by Orlando.

Thanks to Jerry Scharf <[email-masked]> the minutes.

-30-

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1998 18:19:25 -0700 (PDT)

> binary-labels and dname were submited to the i-d editor before
> September 4 as promised.  The former has been announced by the
> i-d editor, but the file is not online.  (Two prods have gone
> unanswered.)

i have prodded three times.  i can't seem to communicate that the file
is not there.

randy

---

From: "Matt Crawford" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 06 Sep 1998 17:38:15 -0500