Subject: [dnsext] DNS RRTYPEs for ILNP review - Comments period end July 5th

From: Roy Arends <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 22:00:50 +0000

Dear Colleagues,

Below is a completed template requesting new RRTYPE assignments under the procedures of RFC6195.

This message starts a 3 weeks period for an expert-review of the DNS RRTYPE parameter allocations for ILNP specified in http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-irtf-rrg-ilnp-dns-05.txt

If you have comments regarding this request please post them here before July 5th 18:00 UTC.

Best Regards,
Roy Arends

          DNS RRTYPE PARAMETER ALLOCATION TEMPLATE

      When ready for formal consideration, this template is
      to be submitted to IANA for processing by emailing the
      template to [email-masked].

      A.    Submission Date:  To be determined.

      B.    Submission Type:
            [X] New RRTYPE

      C.    Contact Information for submitter:
               Name:  R. Atkinson
               Email Address: [email-masked]
               International telephone number: unlisted
               Other contact handles:

      D.    Motivation for the new RRTYPE application?

         Support for an experimental set of IP extensions
         that replace the concept of an "IP Address" with
         distinct "Locator" and "Identifier" values.

      E.    Description of the proposed RR type.

            Please see:

              http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-irtf-rrg-ilnp-dns-05.txt

            for a full description.

      F.    What existing RRTYPE or RRTYPEs come closest to filling
            that need and why are they unsatisfactory?

      There is no RRTYPE that fulfils the need due to the
      new semantics of Locator and Identifier values.

         The AAAA record combines both Locator and Identifier,
         so has significantly different semantics than having
         separate L64 and NID record values.  The AAAA record also
         lacks scalability and flexibility in the context of the
         experimental protocol extensions that will use the NID
         and L64 records, as any valid NID record value for a node
         can be used on the wire with any valid L64 record value
         for the same node.

         The CNAME record is closest conceptually to an LP
         record, but a CNAME is a node name referral scheme,
         while the LP record is indicating that the given node
         has the same routing prefix as some other domain name,
         but does not necessarily have any other values that are
         the same.

     Lastly, the AAAA and CNAME RR Types lack a Preference
     field to rank responses.  Such Preference information
     is required for ILNP in order to support the use of multiple
     instances of NID, L32, L64 and LP records.

      G.    What mnemonic is requested for the new RRTYPE (optional)?

         As described in this draft, "NID", "L32", "L64", and "LP".

      H.    Does the requested RRTYPE make use of any existing IANA
            Registry or require the creation of a new IANA
            sub-registry in DNS Parameters?

         Existing registry of DNS Resource Record (RR) data TYPE
         values should be used.

      I.    Does the proposal require/expect any changes in DNS
            servers/resolvers that prevent the new type from being
            processed as an unknown RRTYPE (see [RFC3597]) ?

         No.

      J.    Comments:
           This document defines "ILNP-aware" DNS servers
           or DNS resolver as a DNS server (authoritative or recursive)
           that MAY include other ILNP RRTypes in the Additional
           section of a DNS response that match a QNAME (if
           size permits). This is to reduce the number of
           DNS stub resolver follow-up DNS queries. and only applies
           when the QTYPE is either NID, L32, L64, or LP.  There is no
           signalling mechanism for this Additional section
           processing, and this is believed to be compatible
           with existing non-ILNP-aware DNS servers and DNS stub
           resolvers.

           No changes are required for existing deployed
           DNS servers or DNS resolvers.

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

---

From: Tony Finch <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 19:09:11 +0100

> http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-irtf-rrg-ilnp-dns-05.txt

This looks OK to me, though I have a few observations.

Regarding the presentation format of NID and L64 RRs, is the uncompressed
NNNN:NNNN:NNNN:NNNN format going to be standard throughout ILNP? I
couldn't find any mention of it in draft-irtf-rrg-ilnp-arch. The DNS
master file presentation format should be the same as the usual syntax in
other contexts.

>          but does not necessarily have any other values that are

Actually the RT "route through" resource record [RFC1183] is exactly the
same syntax and almost exactly the same semantics as the LP record. The
only difference I can see is which resource records the querier expects to
find at the target name, and the corresponding additional section
processing. That might be enough to justify the new RR type.

There are some textual problems with the specification of the LP RDATA:
the text describing the presentation format of the target domain name
actually describes the RDATA wire format.

Tony.
-- 
f.anthony.n.finch  <[email-masked]>  http://dotat.at/
Southeast Biscay: Variable 3, becoming southeasterly 4 or 5 later. Slight or
moderate, occasionally rough later. Occasional rain. Moderate or good.
_______________________________________________
dnsext mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext

---

From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2012 22:40:21 +0200

On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 10:00:50PM +0000,
 Roy Arends <[email-masked]> wrote 

> before July 5th 18:00 UTC.

No comment, just to say that I've read the draft (and the other ILNP
documents) and I agree that these new records are a good idea and well
described in the draft.

(Except that the bug found by Tony Finch about the LP record must be
addressed.)

---

From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2012 22:44:59 +0200

On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 07:09:11PM +0100,
 Tony Finch <[email-masked]> wrote 
 a message of 36 lines which said:

> Regarding the presentation format of NID and L64 RRs, is the
> uncompressed NNNN:NNNN:NNNN:NNNN format going to be standard
> throughout ILNP? I couldn't find any mention of it in
> draft-irtf-rrg-ilnp-arch. The DNS master file presentation format
> should be the same as the usual syntax in other contexts.

I suspect that this may be because ILNP strongly discourages the use
of either NID or L64 outside of the DNS context. There is no way to
use the NID or the L64 alone to contact a host ("telnet NID" does
*not* work.) 

When you use them, it is as an IP address ("telnet L64:NID" is
discouraged and will not use ILNP to connect) so general IP address
rules will apply.

Remember that ILNP strongly relies on the DNS, much more than others
Locator-Identifier Separation proposals.
_______________________________________________
dnsext mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext