Hello,
In the attached .pdf, page 6, there are remarks about the “size of DNS
replies”.
It points out that the authority and additional records mean higher
overload.
In that text you add a footnote (3) about “avoiding the inclusion of these
sections”.
The footnote states, I quote :
“It can be removed with dig using the options +noauthority +noadditional”
I hope you’re not too serious about this !
From dig help :
+[no]answer (Control display of answer)
+[no]authority (Control display of authority)
+[no]additional (Control display of additional)
→ these options control the *display* of the sections,
not if a name server should include them in the reply !
Otherwise said : the (DNS) client has *no control* about what the name
server
will include in its answers.
That control has to be exercised on the name server itself, if at all
possible.
(for Bind, look at the option : minimal-responses)
What I fail to see in the text is how data about smart objects gets
published
in/by DNS servers in the first place.
This can be static, but I guess that rapidly one will want a more dynamic
way :
like an object registering itself upon waking up ?
(just like Windows AD service updates DNS with SRV records upon starting)
And that – dynamically updating – introduces security challenges,
certainly if smart objects would be “out there” somewhere on the Internet
and the required DNS server to send updates to,
is visible to the Internet as well.
Kind regards,
Marc Lampo
Security Officer
EURid (for .eu)
From: Antonio Jara [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: 22 May 2012 09:10 PM
To: [email protected]; [email protected]; Yan Wang
Subject: Re: [Lwip] Lwip Digest, Vol 20, Issue 3
Dear Dijk and Yan,
We are also implementing a lightweight version of mDNS and DNS protocol for
constrained environments.
Our approach is mainly focused on the optimizations of the replies included
in the packet, e.g. only include at the beginning the PTR record instead of
the PTR + SRV + AAAA.
It is also considering the options of include some special query to ask
specify TXT tuples, instead of general TXT entries, since the idea is to
describe the devices in a set of TXT records etc...
We are finishing our implementation, therefore, we are highly interested to
write an informational document about the design issues considered for the
lightweight considerations for DNS.
I enclose a paper with some initial considerations, but we are extending it
and implementing it right now on Contiki OS. Therefore, as soon as we have
the final conclusions, guidelines based on the results and stable
implementation. We can start to define this draft.
In conclusion, we would like to know about the interest for this work from
the WG and the possibilities to reach a collaborative approach with Dr.
Wang.
Best regards,
Antonio J. Jara
On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 9:00 PM, <[email protected]> wrote:
If you have received this digest without all the individual message
attachments you will need to update your digest options in your list
subscription. To do so, go to
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lwip
Click the 'Unsubscribe or edit options' button, log in, and set "Get
MIME or Plain Text Digests?" to MIME. You can set this option
globally for all the list digests you receive at this point.
Send Lwip mailing list submissions to
[email protected]
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lwip
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
[email protected]
You can reach the person managing the list at
[email protected]
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Lwip digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: questions on LWIG (Dijk, Esko)
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: "Dijk, Esko" <[email protected]>
To: Yan Wang <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Cc:
Date: Tue, 22 May 2012 09:57:48 +0000
Subject: Re: [Lwip] questions on LWIG
Hello Yan,
the empty sections in the document are currently still open to
contributions. As far as I know, nobody is working on these sections now.
The scope of DNS is indeed not a simplified DNS protocol, but rather
light-weight implementation techniques of DNS. In my view that includes DNS
client used for “typical DNS duties”; and also multicast-DNS (mDNS).
regards,
Esko
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Yan
Wang
Sent: Thursday 17 May 2012 8:38
To: [email protected]
Subject: [Lwip] questions on LWIG
Hi all,
I am interested in LWIG group. I read draft-bormann-lwig-guidance-01, and
the Section 3 is much helpful to my work. But I saw that most chapters in
the Section 4 only have the title/outline. I don’t know whether there is
nobody interested in them, or they just follow the conventional ways and don’t
need much explanation, or somebody are working on them.
My current work is focus on DNS, and I know IETF does not want DNS to take
duties of non-DNS. So what is the defined range of DNS in Section 4.4 in
this draft? I think it shouldn’t be defining a simplified DNS protocol. Is
it the implementation experience on constrained networks similar to
dnsmasq/mdns? Please give your kind advices.
Best regards,
Yan Wang
________________________________________
The information contained in this message may be confidential and legally
protected under applicable law. The message is intended solely for the
addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified
that any use, forwarding, dissemination, or reproduction of this message is
strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender by return e-mail and destroy all copies
of the original message.
_______________________________________________
Lwip mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lwip
_______________________________________________
Lwip mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lwip
