I think we are falling into the restatement antipattern.
This antipattern happens when documents restate mandates from their references, invariably creating confusion if this is just a restatement or actually new normative text that replaces or updates text from the dependency. Don’t do that.
Examples can be put into their own section and clearly marked as such.
Thanks for the proposed updated text regarding CNAMEs. I agree that it is an improvement, but I still think it would be better to omit entirely. By writing that implementations SHOULD follow RFC 1034, you imply that they are permitted not to, which seems objectionable. I think it would be much clearer to simply say that use of DoC does not alter the DNS message contents.
I feel similarly about the Additional section. If you think that it would be useful to deviate from ordinary practices regarding the Additional section, I think this should be in a separate draft on compact DNS responses, not coupled to DoC. For example, such compactification might be even more relevant to UDP Do53 than to DoC.
--Ben
On Mon, Sep 19, 2022 at 7:30 AM Martine Sophie Lenders <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi,
Sorry for the late reply, I was away from any keyboard for the past
two weeks.
I think there might be a misunderstanding regarding the CNAME
behavior, due to some poor wording in our draft: The CNAMEs should,
of course, only be resolved in such a way, if the queried record was
an A or AAAA record. This does not, to my understanding, contradict
the behavior described for CNAMEs in RFC 1034. We propose a
different wording for the first sentence in 5.1 to prevent such
misunderstandings in the future:
In the case of CNAME records in a DNS response to an A or AAAA
record query, a DoC server SHOULD follow
common DNS resolver
behavior [RFC1034] by resolving a CNAME until the
originally requested resource record type is
reached.
Regarding the population of the additional section, we also follow
recommendations in RFC 1034, to only include records useful to the
client. We deem this particularly noteworthy when it comes to DNS,
as from our analysis of DNS traffic, responses can become quite
large due to an abundance of records in the Additional section. With
the message size constraints in LLNs, it might thus be necessary to
prune the DNS message for records actually useful to the querying
DoC client.
Lastly, mind, that, at least in our model for DoC, a DoC client does
not further distribute the information it gathered via DoC.
Regards
Martine
Am 06.09.22 um 17:06 schrieb Ben
Schwartz:
Some further notes on this draft.
Section 5.1 says that a DoC server "SHOULD" follow CNAMEs.
This is a misunderstanding of the nature of DNS transports.
DoC is a DNS transport, like DoT and DoH. The choice of
transport is independent of the DNS server's answering
behavior, which must not be modified by the transport.
Indeed, DPRIVE is now chartered to enable the use of alternate
transports for recursive-to-authoritative queries for which
CNAME following has entirely different rules. This is
possible precisely because the choice of transport does not
alter the logical DNS contents.
Section 5.1 also proposes that the population of the
Additional section might follow different logic when using
DoC.
Modifying the logical DNS behavior would create a wide
range of exciting and unpredictable compatibility issues when
trying to use a new transport. I urge the authors to delete
Section 5.1, which would resolve this problem. The draft
could instead note that the DNS queries and responses are not
modified when using DoC, except under private arrangement
between the client and server.
On Fri, Sep 2, 2022 at 12:20
PM Jaime Jiménez <[email protected]>
wrote:
Dear CoRE WG,
Thanks to the authors and the reviewers that provided
comments on the list for this draft. Given the in-room
support and the list discussion during the WGA the chairs
believe that there is sufficient support for the adoption
of this document in CoRE.
The authors are advised to resubmit the
draft-core-dns-over-coap and to set up a document repo
under the CoRE Github organization at https://github.com/core-wg
BR,
Jaime Jiménez on behalf of the CoRE chairs.
On 15.8.2022 11.26, Jaime Jiménez wrote:
Dear CoRE WG,
We would like to start the call for adoption on draft-lenders-dns-over-coap.
The draft defines a protocol for sending DNS messages over secure CoAP (DTLS and/or OSCORE). The draft was discussed during IETF114 and on IETF113 and was well-received by the group.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-lenders-dns-over-coap/
During the last IETF meeting there were no objections for adoption so we confirm this now on the mailing list. Please let us know if you support adopting this draft. As many people will still be on vacation, we the WGA call will last a couple of weeks, ending the 1st of September.
Note that DNSOP and DPRIVE are in the loop as the draft is relevant for their working groups too.
BR,
