Subject: [dnsext] Request for new RRTYPE assignment: "ASSET"

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2008 11:20:52 -0400

Dear colleagues,

I sent this message below on 28 August, but I just attempted to find
it in the archives and did not.  I'm not entirely sure what happened
to it.  I'm posting it again now.  Because I can't find it in the
archives, I hereby extend the closing date of this request until three
weeks today, 2008-10-02 at 17:00-04.  My apologies to the RRTYPE
requester and the experts for this delay.

---original message follows---

IANA has a request for a new RRTYPE.  They've asked us to attempt to
follow the rules of 2929bis, since it is apparently about to be
adopted by the IETF (and is held up for non-technical reasons, I am
led to believe).

Under the rules of draft-ietf-dnsext-2929bis-07, a completed template
for the request must be posted to the relevant mailing list for at
least three weeks prior to Expert Review decisision.  (For the purposes
of this request, we are using this mailing list; we expect the
mailing list to remain the same in the future, but it is possible that
IANA will change the mailing list.  We'll know once 2929bis is
published in its final form.)

In the meantime, the IESG has appointed a panel of experts.  Roy
Arends ([email-masked]) and Frederico Neves ([email-masked])
are the two panelists, and I will serve as panel chair.

If you have any comments on the request, please post them to the list,
or send them directly to Roy, Frederico, and me.   This call for
comments will close three weeks from today, on 2008-09-18 17:00-04.

Andrew (for the panel)

===begin template===

   A.    Submission Date:

   2008-04-24

   B.    Submission Type:
         [x] New RRTYPE
         [ ] Modification to existing RRTYPE

   C.    Contact Information for submitter:
               Name:  Lutz Donnerhacke
               Email Address: [email-masked]
               International telephone number: +49-3641-460850
               Other contact handles: LD26
         (Note: This information will be publicly posted)

   D.    Motivation for the new RRTYPE application?
         Please keep this part at a high level to inform the Expert and
         reviewers about uses of the RRTYPE. Remember most reviewers
         will be DNS experts that may have limited knowledge of your
         application space.

             We have an Internet Draft describing an infrastructure
             for verifying routes received via BGP4.  The
             infrastructure uses DNS.

             An RRTYPE is needed to represent AS numbers in a compact
             format.  These resource records can be merged to share
             other AS sets and to describe very large AS sets as a
             union of smaller records of the proposed new type.

             Current implementations of this strategy using existing
             RRTYPEs have exceeded the protocol limits of DNS.

   E.    Description of the proposed RR type.
         This description can be provided in-line in the template, as an
         attachment or with a publicly available URL:

             The proposed resource record is described in
             draft-donnerhacke-sidr-bgp-verification-dnssec-04,
             section 2.1 and following.

   F.    What existing RRTYPE or RRTYPEs come closest to filling that
         need and why are they unsatisfactory?
         
             The TXT type comes closest, but attempts to use it have
             exceeded the protocol limits of DNS, with response sizes
             exceeding 100kB.  Experimental numbers are not acceptable
             for the current use case, because the testbed software
             needs to be deployed in embedded software.

   G.    What mnemonic is requested for the new RRTYPE (optional)?
         Note: this can be left blank and the mnemonic decided after the
         template is accepted.

             ASSET

   H.    Does the requested RRTYPE make use of any existing IANA
         Registry or require the creation of a new IANA Sub-registry and
         in DNS Parameters?
         If so, please indicate which registry is to be used or created.
         If a new sub-registry is needed, specify the allocation policy
         for it and initial contents. Also include what the modification
         procedures will be.

             Yes.  In addition to updating the RRTYPE code registry,
             it requires the creation of an IANA sub-registry for
             subtype numbers.  The initial subtype numbers are
             allocated by
             draft-donnerhacke-sidr-bgp-verification-dnssec-04,
             section 2.1.1.  It defines the following subtypes:

             0
              Union of the referenced ASSET RRs and embedded number
              ranges
             
             1
              Set of all possible AS numbers

             2
              Transition marker

             3-15
              Reserved

             Modification is to be by standards action.

   I.    Does the proposal require/expect any changes in DNS
         servers/resolvers that prevent the new type from being
         processed as an unknown RRTYPE (see [RFC3597])?

             No.

   J.    Comments:

             None

===end===

--
to unsubscribe send a message to [email-masked] with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/>

---

From: Paul Vixie <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2008 16:52:59 +0000

i oppose this request for a new rrtype.  dns already has several signalling
mechanisms for negativity, and there's no explaination in this proposal as
to why rcode nxrrset, which was defined in rfc 2136 for dynamic updates,
cannot serve the purpose.  if that has not been considered then i would like
to see it considered.  if it has been considered then i would like to know
the results.

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2008 13:12:24 -0400

> to see it considered.  if it has been considered then i would like to know

Are you sure you replied to the right message?  The subject line of
your message is the one from the ASSET RRTYPE review.  That's the one
I re-posted today.  But the content of the message is related to
signalling for negativity, which is (I think) relevant to the request
I posted yesterday.

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]
+1 503 667 4564 x104
http://www.commandprompt.com/

---

From: Paul Vixie <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2008 18:38:20 +0000

> signalling for negativity, which is (I think) relevant to the request

no, sorry, i didn't review ASSET, only NEGATIVE.

---

From: Kevin Darcy <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2008 20:08:33 -0400

I have nothing to offer in response to this request, from purely a DNS 
technical perspective, but as a matter of semantics, the word "asset" 
already has an established meaning in the English language, with 
different jargonistic colorings in the Legal, Accounting and 
Intelligence fields, and the use of "ASSET" as a mnemonic, for something 
wholly unrelated to any of those meanings, might be confusing.

Granted, we already have NULL, CERT, SINK, OPT and HIP, but in all those 
cases the record type is either a) experimental, b) obsolete (if not 
formally), or c) accurately and unambiguously describe their contents. I 
don't think "asset" falls into any of those categories.

Would an alternative mnemonic be considered?

ASLIST?

ASGROUP?

ASNUMS?

- Kevin

---

From: Shane Kerr <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2008 17:10:11 -0400

Kevin,

> wholly unrelated to any of those meanings, might be confusing.

Good point.

In RPSL the class AS-SET is used to describe such things.

--
Shane