Hi Scott, I think we are talking at cross-purposes.
I have no criticism of the valiant work you have done, and the circuitous route you have been forced to follow to get to this point. The IETF needs more people with your 'can do' attitude, it will help all of us meet our endlessly slipping WG milestones. The DTN Working Group, of which I am a member, was asked their opinion by the DNSOPS folks and the DTN-WG AD to comment on your proposal, which I have done. My comments were never intended to be perceived as an attack on you or your proposal. The decision on registration of a RRTYPEs solely rests with the IANA and the Designed Experts of the registry. I fully support the use of DNS with Bundle Protocol, and have been a strong advocate for doing some kind of EID to CLA lookup, so I am extremely grateful you have put all this work in. With that in mind, the summary of my 8 comments on this proposal are: 1. I (personally) think a CBOR encoding would be more future proof, but it is your decision on whether that is important to you. 2. In order to resolve a DNS name to an ipn FQNN, using DNS lookup, I (personally) think that using a combination of SRV and TXT records will be easier to integrate into the current DNS ecosystem. As Paul Vixie pointed out, that ecosystem involves more than just the nameservers. But, again, it's your decision whether that is an issue for you. 3. I find the CLA RRTYPE enumerated values of the form [CLA protocol]-[IP Version]-[BP version] confusing, but again, that might just be me. TCPCL is the name of the convergence layer protocol used in the specifications, v4 is defined in RFC9174, v3 defined in RFC7242, both will operate over TCP/IPv4 and TCP/IPv6. I would prefer to see a definition of TCP-v4-v6, TCP-v4-v7, TCP-v6-v7 pointing to the correct combination of versions, or better yet something along the lines of just TCPCLv4, TCPCLv3. The same applies to LTP and UDP. If I was to implement this, I would expect a reference to a protocol specification that can reasonably describe what an CLA implementation resulting from a lookup is declared to support. 4. Why is the IP version included? Perhaps I am missing a hidden complexity of DNS here, but as a user, given a DNS name, can't I just lookup the RRTYPE for the CLA, and then use A or AAAA records to get either/both IPv4 and IPv6 addresses via the same DNS name? It seems like unnecessary doubling of values to me. 5. Why is the BP version included? The relevant CLA specifications should (maybe all do) include applicability statements for the various Bundle Protocol versions. If you need a DNS based lookup mechanism to determine the version of BP in use at a host, perhaps a third RRTYPE 'BPVER' would be preferable? In many cases the choices of BP version and CLA protocol to use are orthogonal. 6. I assume STCP refers to the expired Simple TCP Convergence-Layer Protocol (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-burleigh-dtn-stcp/). This protocol was never adopted by the DTN WG, the draft expired in 2019, and the functionality superseded by TCPCLv4. I would not recommend referencing this document or even the protocol. 7. I find the inclusion if IPND inconsistent. The only IETF reference to IPND that I could find is an IRTF draft that expired in 2016 (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-irtf-dtnrg-ipnd/), that describes a peer discovery mechanism, not a CLA. Perhaps I have missed a reference (see point a), but I (personally) think that an RRTYPE called "CLA" should only contain CLAs. 8. I understand that ION implements all the CLA RRTYPEs you have described above, which is great, but if this registration is specifically aimed at declaring implementation specific functionality, the document should state it. Alternatively perhaps restrict the registered values to those backed by publicly accessible current specifications, and add a "Private Use" range? Please feel free to ignore any or all of my comments if you disagree, they are meant to be constructive, not some kind of dictat. Cheers, Rick > -----Original Message----- > From: Scott Johnson [mailto:sc...@spacelypackets.com] > Sent: 28 June 2024 10:12 > To: Rick Taylor > Cc: Erik Kline; dnsop; sburleig...@gmail.com; d...@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Re: [dtn] Re: Re: Re: Re: IPN and CLA RRTYPEs to support > Bundle Protocol RFC9171 > > Hi Rick, > > As I have previously stated, I personally have lodged no objection to > using CBOR encoding of (node-nbr) in this case, and actually mentioned the > option myself. Here is the situation as I see it: > > I have requested the creation in the IANA database of the IPN and CLA > RRTYPEs, by the means detailed in RFC6895, section 3.1.1; to whit, > completed (twice, one for each) the form found in Appendix A. of same. > My requests meet the criteria of part 2 of 3.1.1. > > I ran afound of section 3.1.2, point 1, as the Expert Reviewer explained > that I needed to designate wire and presentation formats for the requested > records, in Individual Informational internet-draft format. > > I produced that document, and, as suggested by Expert Reviewer, sent it to > DNSOP for review. There, I received guidance on verbiage and optimal > choice of formats from DNS expert Mark Andrews. I also consulted Scott > Burleigh, first named author of RFC9171, for any particular BP related > concerns. With the help of, and achieving concensus with these two > learned individuals who possess significant specialized knowledge of the > two systems we are integrating in the above described standardized > process, we arrived at a viable document in several hours. > > Upon request of Transport AD, I forwarded to DTN. Of the productive > responses received, Brian Sipos pointed out an interoperability problem > with the notation I wove from whole cloth (based on the notation used in > IPND) to describe CLAs, and you requested information concerning > motivations of the document. Time being of the essense, I incorporated > changes to address the point Brian made and added a section to text > describing my motivation. I did so in short order, as I did previously > with the consultations on DNSOP. > > You raised technical challenges to the proposed 64-bit integer wire > encoding for IPN in this use case, citing RFC9171, and your own draft. > Section 4.2.5.1.2 clearly defines the rules for encoding of EIDs. Only > one component of EID is to be encoded in the RRTYPE, and hence, not an > EID. Further, 64-bit integer is the preferred encoding of the DNS > experts, and Scott Burleigh has confirmed that this proposal conforms to > the encoding defined in your draft; an assertation which has not been > refuted. It has also been confirmed that there is no conflict between > the registration of these RRTYPEs in the described formats and the content > of your draft. > > This particular encoding is not for use inside bundles or by BPAs; indeed, > it will only appear (please correct me if i am wrong, DNSOP participants) > internally inside nameservers and resolvers and on the wire between them. > Thus, these technical challenges seem to have been addressed. > > An alternate proposal was put forward in theory, fulfilled in part by an > expired draft by Brian Sipos, who has indicated that he does not have time > to work on that solution at present. I believe him; I imagine his > workplace is exceedingly busy of late. I know mine is. > > Having arrived at loose consensus with experts from both disciplines > involved, and lacking a good reason to further revise the draft which is > now before the Expert Reviewer for a decision as to the creation of the > RRTYPEs, I think the best course of action is to let the Expert Reviewer > do their job and approve or (hopefully not) deny the RRTYPE reservations. > The IANA registry will likely reference my draft if approved, and I will > likely be requesting at least one more RRTYPE to hold BPSEC data. > > If DTN WG wishes to take up this special purpose individual informational > draft instead of other pressing business it is chartered for, it is free > to do so. It is in no way necessary to do so to perfect my RRTYPE request > procedure, and seems a waste of time to me. If you want something for the > WG to take up, I will be producing another Informational draft soon which > you will surely find interesting concerning discrete DNS networks on > different planetary bodies interoperating by means of transiting IP > request metadata across the BP deep space network. That, IMHO, is worthy > of asking the attention of the group here assembled. > > Please understand; we are operating in an Adopt, Adapt, Author order of > preference when it comes to solving real world problems being faced right > now. In this case, 'Adopt'ing new DNS RRTYPEs to distribute BP > information to IP speaking BP nodes fits the bill. It "just works" in a > way that those who will use it will already understand, and is easy to > implement all the way around. It may not be the best solution possible, > but it was the best one available. > > Thanks, > Scott > > > > On Thu, 27 Jun 2024, Rick Taylor wrote: > > > Hi Scott, > > > > <chair hat on> > > > > I absolutely sympathise with your need to "grab an RRTYPE and make > progress", but there is a process choice to be made here: > > > > * Do DNSOPS want the RRTYPE registrations to integrate with the wider work > of the DTN working group? In which case discussion like this must continue, > and the document should be adopted by the WG. > > * Or is everyone happy to register the RRTYPEs as "ScottJ and colleagues > need some unique RRTYPEs for the solution they're working on - no alignment > with the wider work of the DTN WG implied"? I would propose calling the > RRTYPE NODEID not IPN to make this clear, and not have the reference > specification be an IETF document. > > > > I'm genuinely not trying to scupper this work. I'm actually happy with > > either > approach, I'm just trying to ensure moving fast doesn't accidently set > perceived standards that then consume WG cycles in the future to align with > current work. > > > > But before we consume too much more of all of our time, a decision needs to > be made on the approach, and I think Erik (DTN AD), the DNSOPS Designated > Experts/Chairs and Scott need to discuss their preferred options. > > > > We have "Naming and addressing" as part of the DTN WG charter, so this > work could be adopted if the WG is willing, but that may not suit Scott's > timeline. > > > > Cheers, > > Rick > > _______________________________________________ > > 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
