Hi Scott, Thanks for publishing this doc, it looks really interesting.
One thing I am unclear about is what is the purpose of having a DNS record mapping a dtn or ipn Node ID to an IP address. Is it so that 'routing' lookups can be performed at BPAs when a next hop for a particular EID is not known locally? It would be great to have the rationale described in the document. I'm also a wondering if there out to be references to the relevant specifications for the CLA's in the RRTPE values: e.g. BSSP-v6 and STCP-v4? Cheers, Rick > -----Original Message----- > From: Scott Johnson [mailto:sc...@spacelypackets.com] > Sent: 25 June 2024 10:57 > To: Erik Kline > Cc: dnsop; sburleig...@gmail.com; d...@ietf.org > Subject: [dtn] Re: [DNSOP] Re: IPN and CLA RRTYPEs to support Bundle > Protocol RFC9171 > > Hi Erik, > > Cross posted to DTN list for any such discussion, if they so desire. > The draft in question is here: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-johnson-dns-ipn-cla/ > > Thanks, > ScottJ > > On Tue, 25 Jun 2024, Erik Kline wrote: > > > Speaking as the responsible AD for DTN, I think the DTN working group > > should probably have a discussion about what it wants to do (if > > anything) vis. DNS RRs. > > > > On Tue, Jun 25, 2024 at 08:27 Scott Johnson <sc...@spacelypackets.com> > > wrote: > > Hi Mark, > > > > On Tue, 25 Jun 2024, Mark Andrews wrote: > > > > > > > > > > >> On 25 Jun 2024, at 16:36, Scott Johnson > > <sc...@spacelypackets.com> wrote: > > >> > > >> Hi Mark, > > >> > > >> Noted and changed. Good stuff, thanks. Updated draft > > (04) at datatracker using that verbiage: > > >> > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-johnson-dns-ipn-cla/ > > >> > > >> Is it appropriate to add an acknowledgments section or > > co-authors at this point? > > > > > > I’m not fussed either way. > > > > (05) of the draft adds a "Contributors" section. > > > > > > > >> As well, should I be asking for WG adoption (DNSOP or > > DTN WG), or as an Informational document, is Individual > > submission sufficient? > > > > > > I’ll leave that for the chairs to answer. > > > > Ack. Thank you so much for your time and attention to this > > document. > > > > ScottJ > > > > > > > >> Thanks, > > >> ScottJ > > >> > > >> > > >> On Tue, 25 Jun 2024, Mark Andrews wrote: > > >> > > >>> Made the IPN description more specific. > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> Wire format > > encoding shall > > >>> be an unsigned 64-bit integer in network order. > > Presentation format, for these > > >>> resource records are either a 64 bit unsigned decimal > > integer, or two 32 bit > > >>> unsigned decimal integers delimited by a period with > > the most significant 32 bits > > >>> first and least significant 32 bits last. Values are > > not to be zero padded. > > >>> > > >>>> On 25 Jun 2024, at 15:22, Scott Johnson > > <sc...@spacelypackets.com> wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>> Hi Scott, > > >>>> > > >>>> Wire format of 64 bit unsigned integer it is for IPN. > > >>>> Updated draft (03) incorporating all changes posted > > at: > > >>>> > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-johnson-dns-ipn-cla/ > > >>>> > > >>>> Let me know if you see anything else, Mark, and > > thanks! > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> ScottJ > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> On Mon, 24 Jun 2024, sburleig...@gmail.com wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>>> I've lost lock on the ipn-scheme RFC, but my own > > assessment is that always sending a single 64-bit unsigned > > integer would be fine. The application receiving the > > resource can figure out whether or not it wants to condense > > the value by representing it as two 32-bit integers in > > ASCII with leading zeroes suppressed and a period between > > the two. Internally it's always going to be a > > 64-bitunsigned integer, from which a 32-bit "allocator" > > number can be obtained by simply shifting 32 bits to the > > right; if the result is zero then we're looking at an > > old-style IPN node number. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Scott > > >>>>> > > >>>>> -----Original Message----- > > >>>>> From: Scott Johnson <sc...@spacelypackets.com> > > >>>>> Sent: Monday, June 24, 2024 8:26 PM > > >>>>> To: Mark Andrews <ma...@isc.org>; > > sburleig...@gmail.com > > >>>>> Cc: dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org> > > >>>>> Subject: Re: [DNSOP] IPN and CLA RRTYPEs to support > > Bundle Protocol RFC9171 > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Hi Mark, > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> On Tue, 25 Jun 2024, Mark Andrews wrote: > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>> On 25 Jun 2024, at 10:32, Scott Johnson > > <sc...@spacelypackets.com> wrote: > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Hi Mark, > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> On Tue, 25 Jun 2024, Mark Andrews wrote: > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> An obvious correction “LTP--v6” -> “LTP-v6” > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Aha! Good eye. > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> For IPN why isn’t the wire format two network 64 > > bit integers? That is 16 bytes. Also 2^64-1 is 20 > > characters so 2 64-bit numbers separated by “." is 41 > > characters. It’s not clear where then 21 comes from. > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> EID is the basic unit of IPN naming, which is > > indeed two 64 bit integers separated by a ".". We are > > seeking to represent only the node-nbr component of an EID, > > as the service-nbr component is loosely analagous to a UDP > > or TCP port, for which there is one publicly defined > > service in the registry, and a collection of space agencies > > who lay claim to another chunk of them: > > >>>>>>> > > https://www.iana.org/assignments/bundle/bundle.xhtml#cbhe-service- > num > > >>>>>>> bers As such, there is no gain in including the > > second 64-bit > > >>>>>>> integer, representing service-nbr in the DNS > > records, and indeed, a loss of utility on the application > > level. > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> The node-nbr component is presently, under RFC7116, > > a 64 bit unsigned integer. There is a draft from the DTN > > WG currently making it's way through the IESG which will > > amend the IPN naming scheme. Perhaps I should add it to > > normative references? > > >>>>>>> > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dtn-ipn-update/ > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> In effect it splits the node-nbr component into > > two-32 bit integers; Allocator Identifier and Node Number > > in the "Three-Element Scheme-Specific Encoding" of Section > > 6.1.2 over the above. Section 6.1.1 describes the > > "Two-Element Scheme-Specific Encoding" method which retains > > the use of a single 64-bit integer. Thus, a single 64 bit > > integer (20 characters) or two 32-bit integers (10 > > characters each) delimited by a "." > > >>>>>>> makes 21 characters maximum. This preserves > > forwards compatibility with the proposed amended scheme, > > and does no harm if the scheme fails to achieve > > standardization. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Or just 8 bytes on the wire with both possible input > > formats described. > > >>>>>> Machines using the records will just be converting > > ASCII values to a > > >>>>>> 64 bit integer. We may as well transmit it as > > that. Input validation > > >>>>>> will need to do the conversion anyway to ensure both > > fields will fit > > >>>>>> into 32 bits in the “.” separated case and 64 bits > > in the single value case. > > >>>>>> Length along is not sufficient to prevent undetected > > overflows. The > > >>>>>> only thing you need to determine is which format is > > the initial > > >>>>>> canonical presentation format. That can be changed > > with a later > > >>>>>> update if needed. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> I am tagging in Scott Burleigh, co-author of RFC9171 > > on this point for clarification. > > >>>>> Section 4.2.5.1.2 of same indicates: > > >>>>> > > >>>>> "Encoding considerations: > > >>>>> For transmission as a BP endpoint ID, the > > scheme-specific part of a URI of the ipn scheme SHALL be > > represented as a CBOR array comprising two items. The first > > item of this array SHALL be the EID's node number (a number > > that identifies the node) represented as a CBOR unsigned > > integer. > > >>>>> The second item of this array SHALL be the EID's > > service number (a number that identifies some application > > service) represented as a CBOR unsigned integer. For all > > other purposes, URIs of the ipn scheme are encoded > > exclusively in US-ASCII characters." > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Having already established that we are transmitting > > the node-nbr component only, and not a full EID, I am not > > sure we are restricted to using only US-ASCII. ScottB, > > your opinion? CBOR might also be an option, but that would > > place a higher burden upon implementers, I think. Integer > > notation for wire format is fine by me. > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> Limit CLA characters to Letter Digit Hyphen rather > > than the full ASCII range. > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> It is possible for a node to support multiple CLAs > > on the same IP > > >>>>>>> address and node number. Will this change allow > > multiple, comma > > >>>>>>> delimited values to be expressed in the CLA > > record? If so, can you > > >>>>>>> point me to an example so I can get the verbiage of > > the draft right? > > >>>>>>> If not, what do you recommend (in addition to my > > defining that in the > > >>>>>>> draft)? I like the idea of limiting the usable > > characters. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Personally I would just use a TXT record wire format > > with the > > >>>>>> additional constraint that the values are restricted > > to Letter, Digits > > >>>>>> and interior Hyphens. The input format matches the > > TXT record with > > >>>>>> the above character value constraints. The > > canonical presentation > > >>>>>> form is space separated, unquoted, unescaped ASCII. > > This allow for > > >>>>>> long records to be split over multiple lines. > > Descriptive comments in the zone file. > > >>>>>> This take one extra octet over using comma separated > > values. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Sold to the man from ISC :) This part works great; > > thank you! Updated draft pushed to datatracker at > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-johnson-dns-ipn-cla/ > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Thanks, > > >>>>> Scott > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> e.g. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> example inputs > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> @ CLA ( TCP-V4 ; TCP over IPv4 > > >>>>>> TCP-V6 ) ; TCP over IPv6 > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> @ CLA “TCP-V4” TCP-V6 > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Wire > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> 06 ’T’ ‘C’ ‘P’ ‘-‘ ‘V’ ‘4’ 06 ’T’ ‘C’ ‘P’ ‘-‘ ‘V’ > > ‘6’ > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Canonical presentation > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> @ CLA TCP-V4 TCP-V6 > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Thanks, > > >>>>>>> Scott > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> Mark > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> On 25 Jun 2024, at 08:19, Scott Johnson > > <sc...@spacelypackets.com> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> Hi All, > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> After reading the recent discussion about WALLET, > > I am hesitant to jump into the fray here, but this plainly > > is the correct group to help me get my logic and syntax > > right, so here goes: > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> I submitted requests to IANA for IPN and CLA > > RRTYPEs, these representing the missing datasets necessary > > to make a BP overlay network connection from data found by > > DNS queries. > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> For those not familiar, BP is a store and forward > > mechanism generally used in high latency situations where > > there does not exist constant end-to-end connectivity. It > > was designed for deep space networking, however has network > > segments and application uses which overlay the terrestrial > > Internet. There will arise similar use cases on the Moon > > (in the reasonably near future) and Mars whereby low > > latency, constant connectivity exists, thereby making use > > of DNS in these situations viable. > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> My Expert Reviewer asked for an i-d, to clarify > > the requests, and that said i-d be sent to this list for > > review. > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> Please find the approptiate draft here: > > >>>>>>>>> > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-johnson-dns-ipn-cla/ > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> Relevant IANA requests: > > >>>>>>>>> > > https://tools.iana.org/public-view/viewticket/1364843 > > >>>>>>>>> > > https://tools.iana.org/public-view/viewticket/1364844 > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> I have the BP community also reviewing this, but > > they are generally in agreement as to use. > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> Thanks, > > >>>>>>>>> Scott M. Johnson > > >>>>>>>>> Spacely Packets, LLC > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ > > >>>>>>>>> DNSOP mailing list -- dnsop@ietf.org To > > unsubscribe send an email > > >>>>>>>>> to dnsop-le...@ietf.org > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> -- > > >>>>>>>> Mark Andrews, ISC > > >>>>>>>> 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia > > >>>>>>>> PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: > > ma...@isc.org > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ > > >>>>>>>> DNSOP mailing list -- dnsop@ietf.org To > > unsubscribe send an email to > > >>>>>>>> dnsop-le...@ietf.org > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> -- > > >>>>>> Mark Andrews, ISC > > >>>>>> 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia > > >>>>>> PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: > > ma...@isc.org > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> _______________________________________________ > > >>>>> DNSOP mailing list -- dnsop@ietf.org > > >>>>> To unsubscribe send an email to dnsop-le...@ietf.org > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> -- > > >>> Mark Andrews, ISC > > >>> 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia > > >>> PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: > > ma...@isc.org > > >>> > > >>> _______________________________________________ > > >>> DNSOP mailing list -- dnsop@ietf.org > > >>> To unsubscribe send an email to dnsop-le...@ietf.org > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Mark Andrews, ISC > > > 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia > > > PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: > > ma...@isc.org > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > DNSOP mailing list -- dnsop@ietf.org > > > To unsubscribe send an email to > > dnsop- > leave@ietf.org_______________________________________________ > > DNSOP mailing list -- dnsop@ietf.org > > To unsubscribe send an email to dnsop-le...@ietf.org > > > > > > _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list -- dnsop@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to dnsop-le...@ietf.org
