-----Original Message-----
From: Scott Johnson <sc...@spacelypackets.com>
Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2024 5:57 AM
To: Erik Kline <ek.i...@gmail.com>
Cc: dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>; sburleig...@gmail.com; d...@ietf.org
Subject: [EXT] [dtn] Re: [DNSOP] Re: IPN and CLA RRTYPEs to support Bundle
Protocol RFC9171
APL external email warning: Verify sender forwardingalgori...@ietf.org before
clicking links or attachments
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
