[Docs] [txt|pdf|xml|html] [Tracker] [Email] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01 draft-ietf-dnssd-mdns-dns-interop

IETF                                                         A. Sullivan
Internet-Draft                                                       Dyn
Intended status: Informational                          January 22, 2014
Expires: July 26, 2014


      Requirements for Labels to Interoperate Between mDNS and DNS
                draft-sullivan-dnssd-mdns-dns-interop-00

Abstract

   Despite its name, DNS-Based Service Discovery can use naming systems
   other than the Domain Name System when looking for services.
   Different name systems use different conventions for the characters
   allowed in any name.  In order for DNS-SD to be used effectively in
   environments where multiple different name systems are in use, it is
   important to follow a common set of conventions for naming.  This
   memo presents an outline of the reqiurements for selection of labels
   for mDNS and DNS when they are expected to interoperate in this
   manner.

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on July 26, 2014.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect



Sullivan                  Expires July 26, 2014                 [Page 1]


Internet-Draft            mDNS and DNS Interop              January 2014


   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
     1.1.  Conventions and terms used in this document . . . . . . .   3
   2.  Requirements for a profile for label interoperation . . . . .   3
   3.  DNS-SD portions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     3.1.  The <Instance> Portion of the Service     Instance Name .   4
     3.2.  The <Service> Portion of the Service     Instance Name  .   5
     3.3.  The <Domain> Portion of the     Service Instance Name . .   5
   4.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   5.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   6.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   7.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   Author's Address  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6

1.  Introduction

   DNS-Based Service Discovery (DNS-SD, [RFC6763]) specifies a mechanism
   for discovering services using queries both to the Domain Name System
   (DNS, [RFC1034], [RFC1035]) and to Multicast DNS (mDNS, [RFC6762]).
   Conventional use of the DNS generally follows the host name rules
   [RFC0952] for labels -- the so-called LDH rule.  That convention is
   the reason behind the development of Internationalized Domain Names
   for Applications (IDNA2008, [RFC5890], [RFC5891], [RFC5892],
   [RFC5893], [RFC5894], [RFC5895]).  It is worth noting that the LDH
   rule is a convention, and not a strict rule of the DNS.  It is
   assumed to be true widely enough, however, that in many circumstances
   names cannot be used unless they cleave to the LDH rule.

   At the same time, mDNS requires that labels be encoded in UTF-8, and
   permits a range of characters in labels that are not permitted by
   IDNA2008 or the LDH rule.  For example, mDNS encourages the use of
   spaces and punctuation in mDNS names (see [RFC6763], section 4.1.3).
   It does not restrict which Unicode code points may be used in those
   labels, so long as the code points are UTF-8 in Net-Unicode [RFC5198]
   format.

   Users of applications are, of course, frequently unconcerned with
   (not to say oblivious to) the name-resolution system(s) in service at
   any given moment, and are inclined simply to use the same names in
   different contexts.  As a result, the same string might be tried as a
   name using different name resolution technologies.  If DNS-SD is to
   be used in an environment where both mDNS and DNS are to be queried



Sullivan                  Expires July 26, 2014                 [Page 2]


Internet-Draft            mDNS and DNS Interop              January 2014


   for services, then the names to be queried will need to be compatible
   with the rules and conventions for both DNS and mDNS.

   One approach to interoperability under these circumstances is to use
   a single operational convention for names under the different naming
   systems.  This memo posits such a use profile, and outlines what is
   necessary to make it work.

1.1.  Conventions and terms used in this document

   Wherever appropriate, this memo uses the terminology defined in
   Section 2 of [RFC5890].  In particular, the reader is assumed to be
   familiar with the terms "U-label", "LDH label", and "A-label" from
   that document.  Similarly, the reader is assumed to be familiar with
   the U+NNNN notation for Unicode code points used in [RFC5890] and
   other documents dealing with Unicode code points.  In the interests
   of brevity and consistency, the definitions are not repeated here.

   This memo refers to names in the DNS as though the LDH rule and
   IDNA2008 are strict requirements.  They are not.  DNS labels are, in
   principle, just collections of octets, and therefore in principle the
   LDH rule is not a constraint.  In practice, applications often
   intercept labels that do not conform to the LDH rule and apply IDNA
   and other transformations.

   The term "owner name" (common to the DNS vernacular) is used here to
   apply not just to the names to be looked up in the DNS, but to any
   name that might be looked up either in the DNS or using mDNS.

2.  Requirements for a profile for label interoperation

   Any interoperability between mDNS and DNS will require
   interoperability across some of the portions of a DNS-SD Service
   Instance Name (see Section 3) that are implicated in regular mDNS and
   DNS lookups.  The open question is which of the portions are
   implicated.  In any case, if a given portion is implicated, the
   profile will need to apply to all labels in that portion.

   Because the profile will need to apply to names that might need to
   interoperate with names in the DNS, and because mDNS permits labels
   that IDNA does not, the profile will reduce the labels that may be
   used with mDNS.  Consequently, some recommendations from [RFC6763]
   will not really be possible to implement using names subject to the
   profile.  In particular, [RFC6763], section 4.1.3 recommends that
   rich text, human-readable labels be used, and includes punctuation
   and space characters in the examples.  It is not clear whether such
   uses will be possible, because spaces and most punctuation are
   permitted neither in U-labels nor in LDH labels.  In addition, the



Sullivan                  Expires July 26, 2014                 [Page 3]


Internet-Draft            mDNS and DNS Interop              January 2014


   same section recommends that labels always be stored and communicated
   as UTF-8, even in the DNS.  Because IDNA2008 libraries will treat any
   Unicode-encoded labels as candidate U-labels and attempt to perform
   resolution in A-label form, the advice to store and transmit labels
   as UTF-8 in the DNS is likely to encounter problems.  By contrast,
   mDNS normally uses UTF-8.

   U-labels cannot contain upper case letters.  That restriction extends
   to ASCII-range upper case letters that work fine in LDH-labels.  It
   may be confusing that the character "A" works in the DNS when none of
   the characters in the label has a diacritic, but does not work when
   there is such a diacritic in the label.  Labels in mDNS names may
   contain upper case characters, so the profile will need either to
   restrict the use of upper case or come up with a reliable and
   predictable convention for case folding.

3.  DNS-SD portions

   DNS-SD specifies three portions of the owner name for a DNS-SD
   resource record.  These are the <Instance> portion, the <Service>
   portion, and the <Domain>.  The owner name made of these three parts
   is called the Service Instance Name.  It is worth observing that a
   portion may be more than one label long.  See [RFC6763], section 4.1.

3.1.  The <Instance> Portion of the Service Instance Name

   [RFC6763] is clear that the <Instance> portion of the Service
   Instance Name is intended for presentation to users, and therefore
   virtually any character is permitted in it.  There are two ways that
   a profile might address this portion; a specification of the profile
   will need to select one of these strategies.

   The first option is to treat this portion as likely to be intercepted
   by system-wide IDNA-aware resolvers.  In this case, the portion needs
   to be made subject to the profile, thereby curtailing what characters
   may appear in this portion.  This approach permits DNS-SD to use any
   standard system resolver but presents inconsistencies with the DNS-SD
   specification and with DNS-SD that is exclusively mDNS-based.

   The second option is to specify that the portion never be handled by
   "normal" DNS resolution, and that it instead be handled by a special
   DNS-SD resolution path.  In this case, DNS-SD works as it always
   does, but at the cost of a possibly more complicated system-wide
   resolver or special resolution code built into the DNS-SD system.







Sullivan                  Expires July 26, 2014                 [Page 4]


Internet-Draft            mDNS and DNS Interop              January 2014


3.2.  The <Service> Portion of the Service Instance Name

   DNS-SD includes a <Service> component in the Service Instance Name.
   This component is not really user-facing data, but is instead control
   data embedded in the Service Instance Name.  This component includes
   so-called "underscore labels", which are labels prepended with U+005F
   (_).  The underscore label convention was established by DNS SRV
   ([RFC2782]) for identifying metadata inside DNS names.  A system-wide
   resolver (or DNS middlebox) that cannot handle underscore labels will
   not work with DNS-SD at all, so it is safe to suppose that such
   resolvers will not attempt to do special processing on these labels.
   Therefore, the <Service> portion of the Service Instance Name will
   not be subject to the profile.

3.3.  The <Domain> Portion of the Service Instance Name

   The <Domain> portion of the service instance name forms an integral
   part of the QNAME submitted for DNS resolution, and a system-wide
   resolver that is IDNA2008-aware is likely to interpret labels with
   UTF-8 in the QNAME as candidates for IDNA2008 processing.  Therefore,
   these labels will need to be subject to the profile.

4.  Acknowledgements

   The author gratefully acknowledges the insights of Kerry Lynn.

5.  IANA Considerations

   This memo makes no requests of IANA.

6.  Security Considerations

   This memo presents some requirements for future development, but does
   not specify anything.  Therefore, it has no imlpications for
   security.

7.  Informative References

   [RFC0952]  Harrenstien, K., Stahl, M., and E. Feinler, "DoD Internet
              host table specification", RFC 952, October 1985.

   [RFC1034]  Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - concepts and facilities",
              STD 13, RFC 1034, November 1987.

   [RFC1035]  Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and
              specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, November 1987.





Sullivan                  Expires July 26, 2014                 [Page 5]


Internet-Draft            mDNS and DNS Interop              January 2014


   [RFC2782]  Gulbrandsen, A., Vixie, P., and L. Esibov, "A DNS RR for
              specifying the location of services (DNS SRV)", RFC 2782,
              February 2000.

   [RFC5198]  Klensin, J. and M. Padlipsky, "Unicode Format for Network
              Interchange", RFC 5198, March 2008.

   [RFC5890]  Klensin, J., "Internationalized Domain Names for
              Applications (IDNA): Definitions and Document Framework",
              RFC 5890, August 2010.

   [RFC5891]  Klensin, J., "Internationalized Domain Names in
              Applications (IDNA): Protocol", RFC 5891, August 2010.

   [RFC5892]  Faltstrom, P., "The Unicode Code Points and
              Internationalized Domain Names for Applications (IDNA)",
              RFC 5892, August 2010.

   [RFC5893]  Alvestrand, H. and C. Karp, "Right-to-Left Scripts for
              Internationalized Domain Names for Applications (IDNA)",
              RFC 5893, August 2010.

   [RFC5894]  Klensin, J., "Internationalized Domain Names for
              Applications (IDNA): Background, Explanation, and
              Rationale", RFC 5894, August 2010.

   [RFC5895]  Resnick, P. and P. Hoffman, "Mapping Characters for
              Internationalized Domain Names in Applications (IDNA)
              2008", RFC 5895, September 2010.

   [RFC6762]  Cheshire, S. and M. Krochmal, "Multicast DNS", RFC 6762,
              February 2013.

   [RFC6763]  Cheshire, S. and M. Krochmal, "DNS-Based Service
              Discovery", RFC 6763, February 2013.

Author's Address

   Andrew Sullivan
   Dyn
   150 Dow St.
   Manchester, NH  03101
   U.S.A.

   Email: asullivan@dyn.com






Sullivan                  Expires July 26, 2014                 [Page 6]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129d, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/