Dino,
This document has been sitting around for 4 years indeed, but it has been
presented to the WG for discussion only during IETF 96 (Summer 2016).
https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/96/lisp.html
<https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/96/lisp.html>
The presentation was only 2 slides long and had no comments (you can check the
minutes).
No discussions have being going on ever since, neither in the mailing list nor
during face to face meetings.
You have all rights to ask for adoption, but not to formally open the call for
adoption.
IETF procedures want that is up to the chairs to open the adoption call.
Even so, your _informal_ call for adoption has raised 2 supports and 1
objection.
At this stage there are no sufficient elements that allow the chairs to declare
consensus for adoption.
What I would suggest is:
- to continue the technical discussion on the mailing list
- the more the better
- present the document during one of the next meetings
- Please focus on why this is needed from a technical standpoint. Just
stating I use it in another document is not a technical reason.
- If at that point there is interest from the WG, we will make the call
for adoption.
I encourage you all to continue the discussion.
Ciao
Luigi
> On 1 Oct 2020, at 05:04, Dino Farinacci <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Well chairs - can you make a decision?
>
> Dino
>
>> On Sep 29, 2020, at 1:58 PM, Dino Farinacci <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> So since there seems to be support and little or no objections, can we make
>> this draft a working group document and continue the discussion. I can add
>> more text to reflect Joel’s comments.
>>
>> Thanks for the comments and discussion Joel.
>>
>> Dino
>>
>>> On Sep 29, 2020, at 1:23 PM, Joel M. Halpern <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Another way of looking at my issue here is the many problems the DNS folks
>>> have had with tXT records. They are free-form text. Making them useful
>>> has proven to be a major challenge. hence, even as RLOCs rather than EIDs
>>> (where the collision problem is not an issue), I am concerned that adding
>>> this is opening a can of worms.
>>>
>>> Yours,
>>> Joel
>>>
>>> PS: Dino, youa re correct that the hash probably won't collide with
>>> anything else. But for anything that is not cryptographically random,
>>> collision seems a major risk.
>>>
>>> PPS: Even for you hash case, you concluded that you needed a type
>>> discriminator (hash:). Presumably so taht you would know which one you
>>> needed for the ECDSA operation. Sensible. But if we need that, probably
>>> eveyrone needs that. At which point it should be part of the definition.
>>> At which point we get into defining the structure of these naems with
>>> sufficient uniqueness. Or sub-typing, Or something.
>>>
>>> On 9/29/2020 3:58 PM, Dino Farinacci wrote:
>>>>> I think it really needs more structure. One does not say "here is a
>>>>> shared database; use any key you like and hope not to collide with other
>>>>> users."
>>>> I can add that to the draft.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> If there is to be standard usage of this, and if there is to be more
>>>>>>> than one such usage, how are collisions avoided? It is not sufficient
>>>>>>> to say "just don't" as different problems may end up needing
>>>>>>> overlapping name spaces. The hash usage (below) assumes that the
>>>>>>> solution is to prepend the string "hash:' on the front. But that is
>>>>>>> not formally defined, and as such is not actually a reliable mechanism.
>>>>>>> (Frankly, for the hashes I would prefer to use a different EID LCAF
>>>>>>> that carries the binary hash.)
>>>>>> The ecdsa-auth use-case assumes that the hash length is largest where
>>>>>> collisions won’t happen. There are applications that use UUIDs and
>>>>>> encodes them in distinguished-name EIDs. UUIDs do not have an allocation
>>>>>> authority. And:
>>>>>
>>>>> the ECDSA draft assumes that no other uses will begin with hash:. This
>>>>> has nothing to do with length. My concern is not collision amon hashes.
>>>>> It is collision between hashes and other uses of the "distinguished name"
>>>>> LCAF.
>>>> If the hash avoids collisions, then anything you put before it, in
>>>> totality makes the name unique.
>>>>> I suspect that the people supporting this have expectations on how this
>>>>> will work. But it seems sufficiently basic that the semantics, rather
>>>>> than the encoding, is where I would expect the WG to start. Encodings
>>>>> are easy.
>>>>>> So lets have a look at each Internet Draft that references
>>>>>> draft-farinacci-lisp-name-encoding and lets review those semantic
>>>>>> encodings.
>>>>>
>>>>> Looking at the couple of places you have chosen to use this, and have
>>>>> therefore been careful not to collide with yourself really does not tell
>>>>> us much.
>>>> If you connect two IPv4 islands behind NATs and register their addresses
>>>> to the same instance-ID to the same mapping system, those addresses will
>>>> collide. The same goes for these names. That is what VPNs are used for and
>>>> hence instance-IDs allows the registering entities to agree to not collide
>>>> names.
>>>> This is a general principle for the LISP mapping system for all EIDs being
>>>> used. And note for RLOC-names, they do not have to be unique. They are
>>>> free-form documentation based names.
>>>>> If you want a sub-type under LCAF, then let's do that. trying to pretend
>>>>> arbitrary strings have distinguishable semantics is asking for trouble.
>>>> The AFI encoding is tigher and save less space in the packet and hence why
>>>> it was chosen. Plus if you use it in LCAFs, there is less LCAF nesting.
>>>> I'm sure many coders appreceiate this.
>>>> Dino
>
> _______________________________________________
> lisp mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
_______________________________________________
lisp mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
