headers
Roy Arends | 14 Jun 2012 00:00
Picon
Favicon

DNS RRTYPEs for ILNP review - Comments period end July 5th

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 dns-rrtype-applications <at> ietf.org.

      A.    Submission Date:  To be determined.

      B.    Submission Type:
            [X] New RRTYPE

      C.    Contact Information for submitter:
               Name:  R. Atkinson
               Email Address: rja.lists <at> gmail.com
               International telephone number: unlisted
               Other contact handles:

      D.    Motivation for the new RRTYPE application?
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Tony Finch | 14 Jun 2012 20:09
Picon
Favicon

Re: DNS RRTYPEs for ILNP review - Comments period end July 5th

> 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.

>          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.

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  <dot <at> dotat.at>  http://dotat.at/
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Stephane Bortzmeyer | 28 Jun 2012 22:44
Picon

Re: DNS RRTYPEs for ILNP review - Comments period end July 5th

On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 07:09:11PM +0100,
 Tony Finch <dot <at> dotat.at> 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
dnsext <at> ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Stephane Bortzmeyer | 28 Jun 2012 22:40
Picon

Re: DNS RRTYPEs for ILNP review - Comments period end July 5th

On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 10:00:50PM +0000,
 Roy Arends <roy <at> nominet.org.uk> wrote 
 a message of 107 lines which said:

> If you have comments regarding this request please post them here
> 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.)

_______________________________________________
dnsext mailing list
dnsext <at> ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Roy Arends | 6 Jul 2012 13:44
Picon
Favicon

ILNP RRTYPEs review - result [IANA #561079]

Dear Colleagues,

This message ends the review process for the ILNP RRTYPEs. According to
my judgment the requests meet RFC6195 at both requirements of section
3.1.1 and none of section 3.1.2 and should be accepted.

I will work with the editors to address Tony Finch' editorial remarks.

Thank you,

Warmly,

Roy Arends

Best Regards,
On Jun 13, 2012, at 11:00 PM, Roy Arends wrote:

> 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
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |

Gmane