Subject: [weirds] Some thoughts on bootstrapping

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2013 11:06:30 -0800

In various hallway track discussions since yesterday, it seems like there
are several considerations relative to IANA with respect to a bootstrapping
solution.  Pete will be talking to the IAB as a liaison to ICANN/IANA to
find out what would be possible in terms of an SLA to create a queryable
registry for WEIRDS (and possibly other current WGs).

There are also some policy and political issues around IANA running this
registry in the first place, regardless of the SLA.  We need to steer well
clear of these as much as possible.

In addition to the methods proposed by Marc, we could also consider the
model the DNS follows with root caches.  The root cache is a bootstrapping
file for the DNS that indicates to a resolving nameserver where to go to
start resolving a question for which the answer is not currently cached.
So far as I'm aware, the documents defining the DNS don't talk about where
to get the root cache; they only imply its existence.  Where you get it and
how is an implementation issue.

I'm envisioning a table that maps name prefixes and CIDR expressions to one
or more WEIRDS servers.  For numbers, the list could simply map all numbers
to all RIR WEIRDS servers, relying on redirection; just pick the closest
one.  For names, however, this is the public suffix problem again; ideally
this would be maintained by some kind of authoritative registry, but it
could also invoke one of the authority discovery methods that was discussed
in Berlin at APPSAWG.

We might consider "punting" in the same way.  We could say a WEIRDS client
needs to learn via some out-of-band method where to send the query for a
given question.  The methods Marc had in his presentation could be
identified as experimental options.  If one emerges as a clear winner in
the future, that one could be written up in a Proposed Standard document,
if that's even necessary.

Comments?

-MSK

---

From: "John Levine" <[email-masked]>
Date: 8 Nov 2013 20:51:34 -0000

It might help to drain the swamp if we can figure out what (if
anything) people agree about and what's still contentious.  For
example:

* Do names and numbers need the same boostrap?  If the answer is yes,
what does "the same" mean here?

* Do names need a bootstrap only for TLD?  For TLD and subdomains
identified by the TLD?  For any domain?  (As the registry for
watkins-glen.ny.us, this is of some interest to me.)

* Is it OK for a names bootstrap to depend on something maintained by IANA?

* Is it OK for a numbers bootstrap to depend on something maintained by IANA?

* How accurate does a numbers bootstrap need to be, e.g., for IPv4 is a
240 entry table for the top octet adequate, or does it have to be like
the >100,000 entry table at NRO?

---

From: "Carlos M. Martinez" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 09 Nov 2013 01:22:03 -0200

Hello !!

> what does "the same" mean here?
Well, the source of bootstrapping data will be necessarily different,
but IMO it would be a good idea if the _way_ bootstrap data is obtained
by clients and servers is the 'same' for both names and numbers. There
goes my definition of 'same' :-)

By this I mean that if we settle on IANA, then both should use IANA, and
if we settle on DNS/reverse DNS, well, both should use it.

> watkins-glen.ny.us, this is of some interest to me.)

Good question. IMO, a reasonable way of working this out would be to
bootstrap names to the level of the TLD, and say numbers to the level of
the /8s, or the IPv6 /12s (and those pesky /24s from times past).

>From this high level down, you should follow a redirection tree.

In our case (a RIR), at some point we should redirect RDAP queries to
our NIRs, for example.

> * Is it OK for a names bootstrap to depend on something maintained by IANA?

"N/A"

> * Is it OK for a numbers bootstrap to depend on something maintained by IANA?
I dont' have a problem with it. But, what do we mean by 'depend' ? If we
mean just storing some plain CSV/JSON bootstrap files, then, no problem
at all.

If we, on the other hand, believe that 'depend' implies operating an
RDAP server and providing redirects from IANA downwards, then we should
ask them if they believe they are able / willing to handle that kind of
load.

> the >100,000 entry table at NRO?

For clients the 240-entry table is enough. The RIRs have the information
to properly redirect from one to the other for those cases where a
higher 'resolution' would be needed (for example, those cases where a
single /16s out of a /8 is in use in another RIR).

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