Subject: Re: [mile] Defining RelatedDNS

From: "Panos Kampanakis (pkampana)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2015 19:48:19 +0000

I think the cleanest method that follow how IODEF was designed in 3). 

1) is a hack, I would rather see bindings between IODEF's XMLS and JSON. 2) even though I had proposed it I think, it is indeed not very descriptive. I am not sure what solution would 4) be.

Thus, 3) and Additional Data with extension is sufficient IMO.

Panos

-----Original Message-----
From: mile [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Roman D. Danyliw
Sent: Friday, February 27, 2015 3:48 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [mile] Defining RelatedDNS

Hello!

RelatedDNS in 5070bis is intended to describe arbitrary DNS records.  While the intent of class is understanding the specified representation has not been clarified.  The issue is tracked in Issue #39 [1] and there is prior discussion on the list [2].  At the Honolulu meeting [3], this topic generated sufficient discussion requiring it to be brought back to the list for further discussion.

Possible options include:

(1) At the Honolulu meeting, Paul Hoffman suggested a draft providing a JSON notation for DNS records.
Background: draft-hoffman-dns-in-json-02
Options: reference outright, convert from JSON to XML
Pro: well-defined format elsewhere
Con: is JSON inside XML a kludge?
Con: experimental draft as a normative reference to standards track document

(2) A comma separated value list of DNS fields
Background: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mile/current/msg01329.html
Pro: simple
Con: not sufficiently descriptive as currently suggested

(3) Defining RelatedDNS as iodef:AdditionalData and requiring an extension
Pro: no extra work required
Con: defers action on a need previously articulated in the community

(4) Define an alternative representation for RelatedDNS
Pro: opportunity to create an appropriately tailored solution
Con: requires new work/documentation

Are there other options?  What do you think?

Roman

[1] http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/mile/trac/ticket/39
[2] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mile/current/msg01325.html
[3] http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/91/minutes/minutes-91-mile

_______________________________________________
mile mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mile

---

From: "Takeshi Takahashi" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Mar 2015 11:04:02 +0900

Hello all,

In short, I would prefer option (3) as well.

I would prefer to have portability of the techniques.

If there is a draft on describing DNS record, I would prefer to borrow its
schema so that IODEF can use it.

We could convey the schema to embed information inside the AdditionalData
class by using RFC 7203, or the other means.

Could the draft cited below be the one we are discussing?

https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hoffman-dns-in-json-00

One direction we could consider is that the MILE WG could consider providing
XML schema for the draft (since the draft has only JSON format) and ask the
editors of the DNS JSON draft to put it in its appendix.

Regards,

Take

2015-03-06 4:48 GMT+09:00 Panos Kampanakis (pkampana) <[email-masked]>:
> 1) is a hack, I would rather see bindings between IODEF's XMLS and JSON.
2) even though I had proposed it I think, it is indeed not very descriptive.
I am not sure what solution would 4) be.
> RelatedDNS in 5070bis is intended to describe arbitrary DNS records.
While the intent of class is understanding the specified representation has
not been clarified.  The issue is tracked in Issue #39 [1] and there is
prior discussion on the list [2].  At the Honolulu meeting [3], this topic
generated sufficient discussion requiring it to be brought back to the list
for further discussion.
> Background:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mile/current/msg01329.html

-- 
--
Takeshi Takahashi, Ph.D.
+81 80 3490 2971
http://www.taketaka.com/