From 9e1de3668b75b29ac2f2a7f2ae59c7762720da94 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: ID Bot Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2024 09:13:50 +0000 Subject: [PATCH] Script updating gh-pages from ac7d119. [ci skip] --- .../draft-lenders-dns-cbor.html | 2901 +++++++++++++++++ .../draft-lenders-dns-cbor.txt | 1736 ++++++++++ draft-lenders-dns-cbor-09/index.html | 45 + index.html | 8 + 4 files changed, 4690 insertions(+) create mode 100644 draft-lenders-dns-cbor-09/draft-lenders-dns-cbor.html create mode 100644 draft-lenders-dns-cbor-09/draft-lenders-dns-cbor.txt create mode 100644 draft-lenders-dns-cbor-09/index.html diff --git a/draft-lenders-dns-cbor-09/draft-lenders-dns-cbor.html b/draft-lenders-dns-cbor-09/draft-lenders-dns-cbor.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000..cd57638 --- /dev/null +++ b/draft-lenders-dns-cbor-09/draft-lenders-dns-cbor.html @@ -0,0 +1,2901 @@ + + + + + + +A Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR) of DNS Messages + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Internet-Draftdns+cborOctober 2024
Lenders, et al.Expires 24 April 2025[Page]
+
+
+
+
Workgroup:
+
CBOR
+
Internet-Draft:
+
draft-lenders-dns-cbor-latest
+
Published:
+
+ +
+
Intended Status:
+
Standards Track
+
Expires:
+
+
Authors:
+
+
+
M. S. Lenders
+
TU Dresden
+
+
+
C. Bormann
+
Universität Bremen TZI
+
+
+
T. C. Schmidt
+
HAW Hamburg
+
+
+
M. Wählisch
+
TU Dresden & Barkhausen Institut
+
+
+
+
+

A Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR) of DNS Messages

+
+

Abstract

+

This document specifies a compressed data format of DNS messages using +the Concise Binary Object Representation [RFC8949]. +The primary purpose is to keep DNS messages small in constrained networks.

+
+
+

+About This Document +

+

This note is to be removed before publishing as an RFC.

+

+ The latest revision of this draft can be found at https://anr-bmbf-pivot.github.io/draft-lenders-dns-cbor/draft-lenders-dns-cbor.html. + Status information for this document may be found at https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-lenders-dns-cbor/.

+

+ Discussion of this document takes place on the + CBOR Working Group mailing list (mailto:cbor@ietf.org), + which is archived at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/cbor/. + Subscribe at https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cbor/.

+

Source for this draft and an issue tracker can be found at + https://github.com/anr-bmbf-pivot/draft-lenders-dns-cbor.

+
+
+
+

+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 https://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 24 April 2025.

+
+
+ +
+
+ ▲

+Table of Contents +

+ +
+
+
+
+

+1. Introduction +

+

In constrained networks [RFC7228], the link layer may restrict the payload sizes of frames to +only a few hundreds bytes. Encrypted DNS resolution, such as DNS over HTTPS (DoH) [RFC8484] or +DNS over CoAP (DoC) [I-D.ietf-core-dns-over-coap], may lead to DNS message sizes that exceed this limit, even when +implementing header compression such as 6LoWPAN IPHC [RFC6282] or SCHC [RFC8724], +[RFC8824].

+

Although adoption layers such as 6LoWPAN [RFC4944] or SCHC [RFC8724] offer fragmentation to +comply with small MTUs, fragmentation should be avoided in constrained networks. +Fragmentation combined with high packet loss multiplies the likelihood of loss. +Hence, a compression format that reduces fragmentation of DNS messages is beneficial.

+

This document specifies a compressed data format for DNS messages using Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR) [RFC8949] encoding. Additionally, unnecessary or redundant information are stripped off DNS messages. To use the outcome of this specification in DoH and DoC, +this document also specifies a Media Type header for DoH and a Content-Format option for DoC.

+
+
+
+
+

+2. Terminology +

+

CBOR types (unsigned integer, byte string, text string, arrays, etc.) are used as defined in +[RFC8949].

+

The terms "DNS server", "DNS client", and "(DNS) resolver" are used as defined in [RFC8499].

+

A DNS query is a message that queries DNS information from an upstream DNS resolver. +The reply to that is a DNS response.

+

The DNS message format specified in [RFC1035] for DNS over UDP we call "classic DNS format" throughout this document or refer to it by its media type "application/dns-message" as specified in [RFC8484].

+

The term "constrained networks" is used as defined in [RFC7228].

+

The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", +"MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as +described in BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they +appear in all capitals, as shown here.

+
+
+
+
+

+3. CBOR Representations (application/dns+cbor) +

+

DNS messages are represented as CBOR arrays to minimize overhead. +All CBOR items used in this specification are of definite length. +CBOR arrays that do not follow the length definitions of this or of follow-up specifications, MUST be silently ignored. +CBOR arrays that exceed the message size provided by the transport, MUST be silently ignored. +It is assumed that DNS query and DNS response are distinguished message types and that the query can be mapped to the response by the transfer protocol of choice. +To define the representation of binary objects we use the Concise Data Definition Language (CDDL) [RFC8610]. +For examples, we use the CBOR Extended Diagnostic Notation [I-D.ietf-cbor-edn-literals].

+
+
+
+
+dns-message = dns-query / dns-response
+
+
+
Figure 1: +This document defines both DNS Queries and Responses in CDDL +
+
+

If, for any reason, a DNS message cannot be represented in the CBOR format specified in this document, or if unreasonable overehead is introduced, a fallback to another DNS message format, e.g., the classic DNS format specified in [RFC1035], MUST always be possible.

+
+
+

+3.1. Domain Name Representation +

+

Domain names are represented by a sequence of one or more (unicode) text strings. +For instance, "example.org" would be represented as "example","org" in CBOR diagnostic notation. +The root domain "." is represented as an empty string "". +The absence of any label or tag TBDt (see Section 3.1.1 below) means the name is elided. +For the purpose of this document, domain names remain case-insensitive as specified in [RFC1035].

+

The representation of a domain name is defined in Figure 2.

+

This sequence of text strings is supposed to be embedded into a surrounding array, usually the query +or resource record.

+
+
+

+3.1.1. Name Compression +

+
+
+
+
+domain-name = (
+  * label,
+  ? ( #6.TBDt(uint) / label ),
+)
+label = tstr
+
+
+
Figure 2: +Domain Name Definition +
+
+

Names are compressed by pointing to existing labels in the message. +CBOR objects are typically decoded depth-first. +Whenever we encounter a label we take the value of a counter c as the position of that label. +The counter c is then increased.

+

A tag TBDt may follow any sequence of labels, even an empty sequence. +This tag TBDt encapsulates an unsigned integer i which points to a label at position i. +i MUST be smaller than c. +A name then is decoded as any label that then preceded tag TBDt(i) and all labels including and following at position i are appended. +This includes any further occurrence of tag TBDt after the referenced label sequence, though the decoding stops after this tag was recursively decoded.

+

For instance, the name "www.example.org" can be encountered twice in the example in +Figure 3 (notated in CBOR Extended Diagnostic Notation, see [I-D.ietf-cbor-edn-literals]).

+
+
+
+
+[
+  # AAAA (28, elided) question for "example.org"
+  [ "example" / c == 0 /, "org" / c == 1 / ],
+  # Answer section:
+  [
+    # "example.org" (elided) CNAME (5) is "www.example.org"
+    [ 5, "www" / c == 2 /, TBDt(0) / references c == 0 / ],
+    # "www.example.org" AAAA (28, elided) is 2001:db8::1
+    [
+      TBDt(2) / references c == 2 /,
+      h'20010db8000000000000000000000001'
+    ]
+  ]
+]
+
+
+
Figure 3: +Example for name compression. +
+
+

The pseudo-code for this DNS name suffix extension algorithm can be seen in Figure 4.

+
+
+
+
+function decode_name(obj: cbor_obj, cbor_ptr: cbor_major_type): list
+{
+  name: list = []
+  visited: set = {}
+  while (typeof(cbor_ptr) in {tstr, tag}):
+    if typeof(cbor_ptr) == tag:
+      if cbor_ptr.tag != TBDt:
+        break
+      i: uint = cbor_ptr.value
+      if i-th text string after (depth first) cbor_ptr:
+        return ERROR("Forward reference not allowed")
+      cbor_ptr =
+        jump to i-th text string (depth first) in obj
+      if cbor_ptr in visited:
+        return ERROR("Circular reference")
+    # cbor_ptr should be of type tstr at this point
+    name.append(cbor_ptr)
+    visited.add(cbor_ptr)
+  return name
+}
+
+
+
Figure 4: +Name Suffix Extension Algorithm +
+
+

The tag TBDt is included in the definition in Figure 2.

+
+
+
+
+
+
+

+3.2. DNS Resource Records +

+

This document specifies the representation of both standard DNS resource records (RRs, see [RFC1035]) +and EDNS option pseudo-RRs (see [RFC6891].Also add capability to summarize Resource Record Sets to one array, e.g. ["example","org",3600,1,[b'c0002563', h'c00021ab']]?mlenders +If for any reason, a resource record cannot be represented in the given formats, they can be +represented in their binary wire-format form as a byte string.

+

Further special records, e.g., TSIG can be defined in follow-up specifications and are out of scope +of this document.

+

The representation of a DNS resource records is defined in Figure 5.

+
+
+
+
+dns-rr = rr / #6.141(opt-rr) / bstr
+
+
+
Figure 5: +DNS Resource Record Definition +
+
+
+
+

+3.2.1. Standard RRs +

+

Standard DNS resource records are encoded as CBOR arrays containing 2 or more entries in the following order:

+
    +
  1. +

    An optional name (as text string, see Section 3.1),

    +
    2. +
  2. +

    A TTL (as unsigned integer),

    +
    3. +
  3. +

    An optional record type (as unsigned integer),

    +
    4. +
  4. +

    An optional record class (as unsigned integer), and lastly

    +
    5. +
  5. +

    A record data entry (as byte string, domain name, or array for dedicated record data representation).

    +
    6. +
+

If the first item of the resource record is a text string, it is the first label of a domain name (see Section 3.1). +If the name is elided, the name is derived from the question section of the message. +For responses, the question section is either taken from the query (see Section 3.3) or provided with the response see Section 3.4. +The query may be derived from the context of the transfer protocol.

+

If the record type is elided, the record type from the question is assumed. +If record class is elided, the record class from the question is assumed. +When a record class is required to be expressed, the record type MUST also be provided.

+

The byte string format of the record data as a byte string follows the classic DNS format as specified in Section 3.3 [RFC1035] (or other specifications of the respective record type). +Note that the CBOR format does not include the RDLENGTH field from the classic format as this value is encoded in the length field of the CBOR header of the byte string.

+

If the record data represents a domain name (e.g., for CNAME or PTR records), the record data MAY be represented as domain name as specified in Section 3.1. +This can save 1 byte of data, as the zero byte at the end of the name is not necessary with the CBOR format. +Only 1 byte is required to define type and length of each text string representing a label up until a string length of 23 characters, amortizing to the same remaining length as in the name representation in the classic format. +This way of representing the record data also means that name compression (see Section 3.1.1) can also be used on it.

+

Depending on the record type, the record data may also be expressed as an array. +Some initial array types are specified below. +Future specifications can extend the definition for $rdata-array in Figure 6. +These extensions mainly serve to expose names to name compression (see Section 3.1.1). +There is an argument to be made for CBOR-structured formats of other record data representations (e.g. DNSKEY or RRSIG), but structuring such records as an array usually adds more overhead than just transferring the byte representation. +As such, structured record data that do not contain names are always to be represented as a byte string.

+
+
+
+
+max-uint8 = 0..255
+max-uint16 = 0..65535
+max-uint32 = 0..4294967295
+ttl = max-uint32
+rr = [
+  ? domain-name,
+  ttl: ttl,
+  type-spec-rdata,
+]
+type-spec-rdata = (
+  ? type-spec,
+  rdata: bstr // ( domain-name ),
+)
+type-spec-rdata //= ( $$structured-ts-rd )
+type-spec = (
+  record-type: max-uint16,
+  ? record-class: max-uint16,
+)
+
+
+
Figure 6: +DNS Standard Resource Record Definition +
+
+
+
+
+3.2.1.1. SOA Record Data +
+

The record data of RRs with record-type = 6 (SOA) MAY be expressed as an array with at least 7 entries representing the 7 parts of the SOA resource record defined in [RFC1035] in the following order:

+
    +
  • +

    MNAME as a domain name (see Section 3.1),

    +
    • +
  • +

    SERIAL as an unsigned integer,

    +
    • +
  • +

    REFRESH as an unsigned integer,

    +
    • +
  • +

    RETRY as an unsigned integer,

    +
    • +
  • +

    EXPIRE as an unsigned integer,

    +
    • +
  • +

    MINIMUM as an unsigned integer, and

    +
    • +
  • +

    RNAME as a domain name (see Section 3.1).

    +
    • +
+

MNAME and RNAME are put to the beginning and end of the array, respectively, to keep their labels apart.

+

The definition for MX record data can be seen in Figure 7.

+
+
+
+
+$$structured-ts-rd //= (
+  6,    ; record-type = SOA
+  ? 1,  ; record-class = IN
+  soa,
+)
+
+soa = [
+  domain-name,  ; mname
+  serial: max-uint32,
+  refresh: max-uint32,
+  retry: max-uint32,
+  expire: max-uint32,
+  minimum: max-uint32,
+  domain-name,  ; rname
+]
+
+
+
Figure 7: +SOA Resource Record Data Definition +
+
+
+
+
+
+
+3.2.1.2. MX Record Data +
+

The record data of RRs with record-type = 15 (MX) MAY be expressed as an array with at least 2 entries representing the 2 parts of the MX resource record defined in [RFC1035] in the following order:

+
    +
  • +

    PREFERENCE as an unsigned integer and

    +
    • +
  • +

    EXCHANGE as a domain name (see Section 3.1).

    +
    • +
+

The definition for MX record data can be seen in Figure 8.

+
+
+
+
+$$structured-ts-rd //= (
+  15,   ; record-type = MX
+  ? 1,  ; record-class = IN
+  mx,
+)
+
+mx = [
+  preference: max-uint16,
+  domain-name,  ; exchange
+]
+
+
+
Figure 8: +MX Resource Record Data Definition +
+
+
+
+
+
+
+3.2.1.3. SRV Record Data +
+

The record data of RRs with record-type = 33 (SRV) MAY be expressed as an array with at least 3 entries representing the parts of the SRV resource record defined in [RFC2782] in the following order:

+
    +
  • +

    Priority as an unsigned integer,

    +
    • +
  • +

    an optional Weight as an unsigned integer,

    +
    • +
  • +

    Port as an unsigned integer,

    +
    • +
  • +

    Target as a domain name (see Section 3.1).

    +
    • +
+

If the weight is present or not can be determined by the number of unsigned integers before Target. +2 unsigned integers before the Target mean the weight was elided and defaults to 0. +3 unsigned integers before the Target mean the weight is in the second position of the record data array. +The default of 0 was picked, as this is the value domain administrators should pick when there is no server selection to do [RFC2782].

+

The definition for SRV record data can be seen in Figure 9.

+
+
+
+
+$$structured-ts-rd //= (
+  33,   ; record-type = SRV
+  ? 1,  ; record-class = IN
+  srv,
+)
+
+srv = [
+  priority: max-uint16,
+  ? weight: max-uint16 .default 0,
+  port: max-uint16,
+  domain-name,  ; target
+]
+
+
+
Figure 9: +SRV Resource Record Data Definition +
+
+
+
+
+
+
+3.2.1.4. SVCB and HTTPS Record Data +
+

The record data of RRs with record-type = 64 (SVCB) and record-type = 65 (HTTPS) MAY be expressed as an array with at least 3 entries representing the 3 parts of the SVCB/HTTPS resource record defined in [RFC9460] in the following order:

+
    +
  • +

    An optional SvcPriority as an unsigned integer,

    +
    • +
  • +

    An optional TargetName as a domain name (see Section 3.1), and

    +
    • +
  • +

    SvcParams as an array of alternating pairs of SvcParamKey (as unsigned integer) and SvcParamValue +(as byte string).

    +
    • +
+

If the SvcPriority is present can be determined by checking if the record data array starts with an unsigned integer or not. +If the array does not start with an unsigned integer, the SvcPriority is elided and defaults to 0, i.e., the record is in AliasMode (see Section 2.4.2 of [RFC9460]). +If the array starts with a unsigned integer, it is the SvcPriority.

+

If the TargetName is present can be determined by checkinf if the record data array has a text string after the SvcPriority, i.e., if the SvcPriority is elided the array would start with a text string or tag TBDt. +If there is no text string or tag TBDt after the SvcPriority, the TargetName is elided and defaults to the sequence of text strings "" (i.e. the root domain "." in the common name representation defined in Section 2.3.1 of [RFC1035], see Section 3.1), see Section 2.5 of [RFC9460]. +If there is a text string or tag TBDt after the SvcPriority, the TargetName is not elided and in the domain name form specified in Section 3.1.

+

The definition for SVCB and HTTPS record data can be seen in Figure 10.

+
+
+
+
+$$structured-ts-rd //= (
+  64 / 65,  ; record-type = SVCB or HTTPS
+  ? 1,      ; record-class = IN
+  svcb,
+)
+
+svcb = [
+  ? svc-priority: max-uint16 .default 0,
+  ? domain-name,  ; target name
+  svc-params: [ *svc-param-pair ],
+]
+
+svc-param-pair = (
+  svc-param-key: max-uint16,
+  svc-param-value: bstr,
+)
+
+
+
Figure 10: +SVCB and HTTPS Resource Record Data Definition +
+
+

The SvcParams are provided as an array rather than a map, as their order needs to be preserved [RFC9460] which can not be guaranteed for maps.

+
+
+
+
+
+
+

+3.2.2. EDNS OPT Pseudo-RRs +

+

EDNS OPT Pseudo-RRs are represented as a CBOR array. +To distinguish them from normal standard RRs, they are marked with tag TBD141.

+

Name and record type can be elided as they are always "." and OPT (41), respectively [RFC6891].

+

The UDP payload size may be the first element as an unsigned integer in the array. +It MUST be elided if its value is the default value of 512, the maximum allowable size for unextended DNS over UDP (see Sections 2.3.4 and 4.2.1 of [RFC1035]).

+

The next element is a map of the options, with the option code (unsigned integer) as key and the option data (byte string) as value.

+

After that, up to three unsigned integers are following. +The first being the extended flags as unsigned integer (implied to be 0 if elided), +the second the extended RCODE as an unsigned integer (implied to be 0 if elided), and +the third the EDNS version (implied to be 0 if elided). +They are dependent on each of their previous elements. +If the EDNS version is not elided, both extended flags and extended RCODE MUST not be elided. +If the RCODE is not elided the extended flags MUST not be elided.

+

Note that future EDNS versions may require a different format than the one described above.

+
+
+
+
+opt-rr = [
+  ? udp-payload-size: max-uint16 .default 512,
+  options: {* ocode => odata },
+  ? opt-rcode-v-flags,
+]
+ocode = max-uint16
+odata = bstr
+opt-rcode-v-flags = (
+  flags: max-uint16 .default 0,
+  ? opt-rcode-v,
+)
+rcode = 0..4095
+opt-rcode-v = (
+  rcode: rcode .default 0,
+  ? version: max-uint8 .default 0,
+)
+
+
+
Figure 11: +DNS OPT Resource Record Definition +
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+

+3.3. DNS Queries +

+

DNS queries are encoded as CBOR arrays containing up to 6 entries in the following order:

+
    +
  1. +

    An optional boolean field,

    +
    2. +
  2. +

    An optional flag field (as unsigned integer),

    +
    3. +
  3. +

    The question section (as array),

    +
    4. +
  4. +

    An optional answer section (as array),

    +
    5. +
  5. +

    An optional authority section (as array), and

    +
    6. +
  6. +

    An optional additional section (as array)

    +
    7. +
+

If the first item is a boolean and when true, it tells the responding resolver that it MUST include the question section in its response. If that boolean is not present, it is assumed to be false.

+

If the first item of the query is an array, it is the question section, if it is an unsigned integer, it is as flag field and maps to the header flags in [RFC1035] and the "DNS Header Flags" IANA registry including the QR flag and the Opcode.

+

If the flags are elided, the value 0 is assumed.

+

This specification assumes that the DNS messages are sent over a transfer protocol that can map the queries to their responses, e.g., DNS over HTTPS [RFC8484] or DNS over CoAP [I-D.ietf-core-dns-over-coap]. +As a consequence, the DNS transaction ID is always elided and the value 0 is assumed.

+

A question record within the question section is encoded as a CBOR array containing the following entries:

+
    +
  1. +

    The queried name (as domain name, see Section 3.1) which MUST not be elided,

    +
    2. +
  2. +

    An optional record type (as unsigned integer), and

    +
    3. +
  3. +

    An optional record class (as unsigned integer)

    +
    4. +
+

If the record type is elided, record type AAAA as specified in [RFC3596] is assumed. +If the record class is elided, record class IN as specified in [RFC1035] is assumed. +When a record class is required, the record type MUST also be provided.

+

There usually is only one question record [RFC9619], which is why the question section is a flat array and not nested like the other sections. +This serves to safe overhead from the additional CBOR array header. +In the rare cases when there is more than one question record in the question section, the next question just follows. +In this case, for every question but the last, the record type MUST be included, i.e., it is not optional. +This way it is ensured that the parser can distinguish each question by looking up the name first.

+

The remainder of the query is either empty or MUST consist of up to three extra arrays.

+

If one extra array is in the query, it encodes the additional section of the query as an array of DNS resource records (see Section 3.2). +If two extra arrays are in the query, they encode, in that order, the authority and additional sections of the query each as an array of DNS resource records (see Section 3.2). +If three extra arrays are in the query, they encode, in that order, the answer section, the authority, and additional sections of the query each as an array of DNS resource records (see Section 3.2).

+

As such, the highest precedence in elision is given to the answer section, as it only occurs with mDNS to signify Known Answers [RFC6762]. +The lowest precedence is given to the additional section, as it may contain EDNS OPT Pseudo-RRs, which are common in queries (see Section 3.2.2).

+

The representation of a DNS query is defined in Figure 12.

+
+
+
+
+dns-query = [
+  ? incl-question: bool .default false,
+  ? flags: max-uint16 .default 0x0000,
+  question-section,
+  ? query-extra-sections,
+]
+question-section = [
+  * full-question,
+  ? last-question,
+]
+full-question = (
+  domain-name,
+  type-spec,
+)
+last-question = (
+  domain-name,
+  ? type-spec,
+)
+query-extra-sections = (
+  ? answer-section,
+  extra-sections,
+)
+answer-section = [+ dns-rr]
+extra-sections = (
+  ? authority: [+ dns-rr],
+  additional: [+ dns-rr],
+)
+
+
+
Figure 12: +DNS Query Definition +
+
+
+
+
+
+

+3.4. DNS Responses +

+

A DNS response is encoded as a CBOR array containing up to 5 entries.

+
    +
  1. +

    An optional flag field (as unsigned integer),

    +
    2. +
  2. +

    An optional question section (as array, encoded as described in Section 3.3)

    +
    3. +
  3. +

    The answer section (as array),

    +
    4. +
  4. +

    An optional authority section (as array), and

    +
    5. +
  5. +

    An optional additional section (as array)

    +
    6. +
+

As for queries, the DNS transaction ID is elided and implied to be 0.

+

If the CBOR array is a response to a query for which the flags indicate that flags are set in the +response, they MUST be set accordingly and thus included in the response. +If the flags are not included, the flags are implied to be 0x8000 (everything unset except for the +QR flag).

+

If the response includes only one array, then the DNS answer section represents an +array of one or more DNS Resource Records (see Section 3.2).

+

If the response includes more than 2 arrays, the first entry may be the question section, identified +by not being an array of arrays. If it is present, it is followed by the answer section. The +question section is encoded as specified in Section 3.3.

+

If the answer section is followed by one extra array, this array is the additional section. +Like the answer section, the additional section is represented as an array of one or more DNS Resource Records (see Section 3.2).

+

If the answer section is followed by two extra arrays, the first is the authority section, and the second is the additional section. +The authority section is also represented as an array of one or more DNS Resource Records (see +Section 3.2).

+

The authority section is given precedence in elision over the additional section, as due to EDNS options or, e.g., CNAME answers that also provide the A/AAAA records. The additional section tends to show up more often than the authority section.

+
+
+
+
+dns-response = [
+  ? flags: max-uint16 .default 0x8000,
+  ? question-section,
+  answer-section,
+  ? extra-sections,
+]
+
+
+
Figure 13: +DNS Response Definition +
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+

+4. Further Compression with CBOR-packed +

+

If both DNS server and client support CBOR-packed [I-D.ietf-cbor-packed], it MAY be used for further +compression in DNS responses. +Especially IPv6 addresses, e.g., in AAAA resource records can benefit from straight referencing to +compress common address prefixes.

+
+
+

+4.1. Media Type Negotiation +

+

A DNS client uses the media type "application/dns+cbor;packed=1" to negotiate (see, e.g., +[RFC9110] or [RFC7252], Section 5.5.4) with the DNS server whether the server supports packed +CBOR. +If it does, it MAY request the response to be in CBOR-packed (media type +"application/dns+cbor;packed=1"). +The server then SHOULD reply with the response in CBOR-packed, which it also signals with media type +"application/dns+cbor;packed=1".

+
+
+
+
+

+4.2. DNS Representation in CBOR-packed +

+

The representation of DNS responses in CBOR-packed has the same semantics as for tag TBD113 +([I-D.ietf-cbor-packed], Section 3.1) with the rump being the compressed response. +The difference to [I-D.ietf-cbor-packed] is that tag TBD113 is OPTIONAL.

+

Packed compression of queries is not specified, as apart from EDNS(0) (see Section 3.2.2), they only +consist of one question most of the time, i.e., there is close to no redundancy.

+
+
+
+
+

+4.3. Compression +

+

The method of the compressor to construct the packing table, i.e., how the compression is applied, is out of scope of this document. Several potential compression algorithms were evaluated in [TBD].

+
+
+
+
+
+
+

+5. Implementation Status +

+

This section records the status of known implementations of the +protocol defined by this specification at the time of posting of +this Internet-Draft, and is based on a proposal described in +[RFC7942]. The description of implementations in this section is +intended to assist the IETF in its decision processes in +progressing drafts to RFCs. Please note that the listing of any +individual implementation here does not imply endorsement by the +IETF. Furthermore, no effort has been spent to verify the +information presented here that was supplied by IETF contributors. +This is not intended as, and must not be construed to be, a +catalog of available implementations or their features. Readers +are advised to note that other implementations may exist.

+

According to [RFC7942], "this will allow reviewers and working +groups to assign due consideration to documents that have the +benefit of running code, which may serve as evidence of valuable +experimentation and feedback that have made the implemented +protocols more mature. It is up to the individual working groups +to use this information as they see fit".

+
+
+

+5.1. Python decoder/encoder +

+

The authors of this document provide a decoder/encoder +implementation of both the unpacked and packed format +specified in this document in Python.

+
+
Level of maturity:
+
+

prototype

+
+
+
Version compatibility:
+
+

draft-lenders-dns-cbor-08

+
+
+
License:
+
+

MIT

+
+
+
Contact information:
+
+

Martine Lenders <martine.lenders@tu-dresden.de>

+
+
+
Last update of this information:
+
+

July 2024

+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+

+5.2. Embedded decoder/encoder +

+

The authors of this document provide a decoder/encoder +implementation of the unpacked format specified in this +document for the RIOT operating system. It can only encode queries and decode responses.

+
+
Level of maturity:
+
+

prototype

+
+
+
Version compatibility:
+
+

draft-lenders-dns-cbor-05

+
+
+
License:
+
+

MIT

+
+
+
Contact information:
+
+

Martine Lenders <martine.lenders@tu-dresden.de>

+
+
+
Last update of this information:
+
+

October 2023

+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+

+6. Security Considerations +

+

TODO Security

+
+
+
+
+

+7. IANA Considerations +

+
+
+

+7.1. Media Type Registration +

+

This document registers a media type for the serialization format of DNS messages in CBOR. It +follows the procedures specified in [RFC6838].

+
+
+

+7.1.1. "application/dns+cbor" +

+

Type name: application

+

Subtype name: dns+cbor

+

Required parameters: None

+

Optional parameters: packed

+

Encoding considerations: Must be encoded as using [RFC8949]. See [TBD-this-spec] for details.

+

Security considerations: See Section 6 of this draft

+

Interoperability considerations: TBD

+

Published specification: [TBD-this-spec]

+

Applications that use this media type: TBD DNS over X systems

+

Fragment Identifier Considerations: TBD

+

Additional information:

+

   Deprecated alias names for this type: N/A

+

   Magic number(s): N/A

+

   File extension(s): dnsc

+

   Macintosh file type code(s): none

+

Person & email address to contact for further information: + Martine S. Lenders m.lenders@fu-berlin.de

+

Intended usage: COMMON

+

Restrictions on Usage: None?

+

Author: Martine S. Lenders m.lenders@fu-berlin.de

+

Change controller: Martine S. Lenders m.lenders@fu-berlin.de

+

Provisional registrations? No

+
+
+
+
+
+
+

+7.2. CoAP Content-Format Registration +

+

IANA is requested to assign CoAP Content-Format ID for the new DNS message media +types in the "CoAP Content-Formats" +sub-registry, within the "CoRE Parameters" registry [RFC7252], corresponding the +"application/dns+cbor" media type specified in Section 7.1:

+
+
+

+7.2.1. "application/dns+cbor" +

+

Media-Type: application/dns+cbor

+

Encoding: -

+

Id: TBD

+

Reference: [TBD-this-spec]

+
+
+
+
+

+7.2.2. "application/dns+cbor;packed=1" +

+

Media-Type: application/dns+cbor;packed=1

+

Encoding: -

+

Id: TBD

+

Reference: [TBD-this-spec]

+
+
+
+
+
+
+

+7.3. CBOR Tags Registry +

+

In the registry "CBOR Tags" [IANA.cbor-tags], +IANA is requested to allocate the tags defined in Table 1.

+
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+Table 1: +Values for Tag Numbers +
TagData ItemSemanticsReference
TBDtunsigned integerDNS name suffix extensiondraft-lenders-dns-cbor
TBD141arrayCBOR EDNS option recorddraft-lenders-dns-cbor
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+

+8. References +

+
+
+

+8.1. Normative References +

+
+
[I-D.ietf-cbor-edn-literals]
+
+Bormann, C., "CBOR Extended Diagnostic Notation (EDN)", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-cbor-edn-literals-12, , <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-cbor-edn-literals-12>.
+
+
[I-D.ietf-cbor-packed]
+
+Bormann, C. and M. Gütschow, "Packed CBOR", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-cbor-packed-13, , <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-cbor-packed-13>.
+
+
[IANA.cbor-tags]
+
+IANA, "Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR) Tags", <https://www.iana.org/assignments/cbor-tags>.
+
+
[RFC1035]
+
+Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, DOI 10.17487/RFC1035, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc1035>.
+
+
[RFC2119]
+
+Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2119>.
+
+
[RFC2782]
+
+Gulbrandsen, A., Vixie, P., and L. Esibov, "A DNS RR for specifying the location of services (DNS SRV)", RFC 2782, DOI 10.17487/RFC2782, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2782>.
+
+
[RFC3596]
+
+Thomson, S., Huitema, C., Ksinant, V., and M. Souissi, "DNS Extensions to Support IP Version 6", STD 88, RFC 3596, DOI 10.17487/RFC3596, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3596>.
+
+
[RFC6838]
+
+Freed, N., Klensin, J., and T. Hansen, "Media Type Specifications and Registration Procedures", BCP 13, RFC 6838, DOI 10.17487/RFC6838, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6838>.
+
+
[RFC6891]
+
+Damas, J., Graff, M., and P. Vixie, "Extension Mechanisms for DNS (EDNS(0))", STD 75, RFC 6891, DOI 10.17487/RFC6891, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6891>.
+
+
[RFC7252]
+
+Shelby, Z., Hartke, K., and C. Bormann, "The Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP)", RFC 7252, DOI 10.17487/RFC7252, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7252>.
+
+
[RFC8174]
+
+Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8174>.
+
+
[RFC8610]
+
+Birkholz, H., Vigano, C., and C. Bormann, "Concise Data Definition Language (CDDL): A Notational Convention to Express Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR) and JSON Data Structures", RFC 8610, DOI 10.17487/RFC8610, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8610>.
+
+
[RFC8949]
+
+Bormann, C. and P. Hoffman, "Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR)", STD 94, RFC 8949, DOI 10.17487/RFC8949, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8949>.
+
+
[RFC9460]
+
+Schwartz, B., Bishop, M., and E. Nygren, "Service Binding and Parameter Specification via the DNS (SVCB and HTTPS Resource Records)", RFC 9460, DOI 10.17487/RFC9460, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9460>.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+

+8.2. Informative References +

+
+
[I-D.ietf-core-dns-over-coap]
+
+Lenders, M. S., Amsüss, C., Gündoğan, C., Schmidt, T. C., and M. Wählisch, "DNS over CoAP (DoC)", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-core-dns-over-coap-09, , <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-core-dns-over-coap-09>.
+
+
[RFC4944]
+
+Montenegro, G., Kushalnagar, N., Hui, J., and D. Culler, "Transmission of IPv6 Packets over IEEE 802.15.4 Networks", RFC 4944, DOI 10.17487/RFC4944, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4944>.
+
+
[RFC6282]
+
+Hui, J., Ed. and P. Thubert, "Compression Format for IPv6 Datagrams over IEEE 802.15.4-Based Networks", RFC 6282, DOI 10.17487/RFC6282, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6282>.
+
+
[RFC6762]
+
+Cheshire, S. and M. Krochmal, "Multicast DNS", RFC 6762, DOI 10.17487/RFC6762, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6762>.
+
+
[RFC7228]
+
+Bormann, C., Ersue, M., and A. Keranen, "Terminology for Constrained-Node Networks", RFC 7228, DOI 10.17487/RFC7228, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7228>.
+
+
[RFC7942]
+
+Sheffer, Y. and A. Farrel, "Improving Awareness of Running Code: The Implementation Status Section", BCP 205, RFC 7942, DOI 10.17487/RFC7942, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942>.
+
+
[RFC8484]
+
+Hoffman, P. and P. McManus, "DNS Queries over HTTPS (DoH)", RFC 8484, DOI 10.17487/RFC8484, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8484>.
+
+
[RFC8499]
+
+Hoffman, P., Sullivan, A., and K. Fujiwara, "DNS Terminology", RFC 8499, DOI 10.17487/RFC8499, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8499>.
+
+
[RFC8724]
+
+Minaburo, A., Toutain, L., Gomez, C., Barthel, D., and JC. Zuniga, "SCHC: Generic Framework for Static Context Header Compression and Fragmentation", RFC 8724, DOI 10.17487/RFC8724, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8724>.
+
+
[RFC8824]
+
+Minaburo, A., Toutain, L., and R. Andreasen, "Static Context Header Compression (SCHC) for the Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP)", RFC 8824, DOI 10.17487/RFC8824, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8824>.
+
+
[RFC9110]
+
+Fielding, R., Ed., Nottingham, M., Ed., and J. Reschke, Ed., "HTTP Semantics", STD 97, RFC 9110, DOI 10.17487/RFC9110, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9110>.
+
+
[RFC9619]
+
+Bellis, R. and J. Abley, "In the DNS, QDCOUNT Is (Usually) One", RFC 9619, DOI 10.17487/RFC9619, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9619>.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+

+Appendix A. Examples +

+
+
+

+A.1. DNS Queries +

+

A DNS query of the record AAAA in class IN for name "example.org" is +represented in CBOR extended diagnostic notation (EDN) (see Section 8 in +[RFC8949] and Appendix G in [RFC8610]) as follows:

+
+
+[["example", "org"]]
+
+
+

A query of an A record for the same name is represented as

+
+
+[["example", "org", 1]]
+
+
+

A query of ANY record for that name is represented as

+
+
+[["example", "org", 255, 255]]
+
+
+
+
+
+
+

+A.2. DNS Responses +

+

The responses to the examples provided in Appendix A.1 are shown +below. We use the CBOR extended diagnostic notation (EDN) (see [I-D.ietf-cbor-edn-literals] and Appendix G in [RFC8610]).

+

To represent an AAAA record with TTL 300 seconds for the IPv6 address 2001:db8::1, a minimal +response to [["example", "org"]] could be

+
+
+[[[300, h'20010db8000000000000000000000001']]]
+
+
+

In this case, the name is derived from the query.

+

If the name or the context is required, the following response would also +be valid:

+
+
+[[["example", "org", 300, h'20010db8000000000000000000000001']]]
+
+
+

If the query can not be mapped to the response for some reason, a response +would look like:

+
+
+[["example", "org"], [[300, h'20010db8000000000000000000000001']]]
+
+
+

To represent a minimal response of an A record with TTL 3600 seconds for the IPv4 address +192.0.2.1, a minimal response to [["example", "org", 1]] could be

+
+
+[[[300, h'c0000201']]]
+
+
+

Note that here also the 1 of record type A can be elided, as this record +type is specified in the question section.

+

Lastly, a response to [["example", "org", 255, 255]] could be

+
+
+[
+  ["example", "org", 12, 1],
+  [[3600, "_coap", "_udp", "local"]],
+  [
+    [3600, 2, "ns1", TBDt(0)],
+    [3600, 2, "ns2", TBDt(0)]
+  ],
+  [
+    [
+      TBDt(2), 3600, 28,
+      h'20010db8000000000000000000000001'
+    ],
+    [
+      TBDt(2), 3600, 28,
+      h'20010db8000000000000000000000002'
+    ],
+    [
+      TBDt(5), 3600, 28,
+      h'20010db8000000000000000000000035'
+    ],
+    [
+      TBDt(6), 3600, 28,
+      h'20010db8000000000000000000003535'
+    ]
+  ]
+]
+
+
+

This one advertises two local CoAP servers (identified by service name _coap._udp.local) at +2001:db8::1 and 2001:db8::2 and two nameservers for the example.org domain, ns1.example.org at +2001:db8::35 and ns2.example.org at 2001.db8::3535. Each of the transmitted records has a TTL of +3600 seconds. +Note the use of name compression (see Section 3.1.1) in this example.

+
+
+
+
+
+
+

+Appendix B. Comparison to Classic DNS Wire Format +

+

Table 2 shows a comparison between the classic DNS wire format and the +application/dns+cbor format. Note that the worst case results typically appear only rarely in DNS. +The classic DNS format is preferred in those cases. A key for which configuration was used in which +case can be seen in Table 3. Any name label that is longer than 23 bytes adds +a name overhead of 1 byte to its CBOR type header.TBD: Also add structured RRs?.mlenders

+
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+Table 2: +Comparison of application/dns+cbor to classic DNS format. +
ItemClassic DNS format [bytes]application/dns+cbor [bytes]
best caserealistic worst casetheoretical worst case
Header (ID & Flags)4144
Count fields2133
Question section6 + name len.2 + name len.6 + name len. + name overhead9 + name len. + name overhead
Standard RR12 + name len. + rdata len.3
+ + rdata len.		14 + name len. + rdata len. + name overhead17 + name len. + rdata len. + name overhead
Standard RR with name rdata12 + name len. + rdata len.4 + TBDt len.14 + name len. + rdata len. + name overheads16 + name len. + rdata len. + name overheads
EDNS Opt Pseudo-RR11 + options2 + options6 + options14 + options
EDNS Option4 + value len.2 + value len.4 + value len.6 + value len.
+
+
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+Table 3: +Configuration key for Table 2 +. +
Itemapplication/dns+cbor configuration
best caserealistic worst casetheoretical worst case
Header (ID & Flags)Flags elidedQR, Opcode, AA, TC, or RD are setQR, Opcode, AA, TC, or RD are set
Count fieldsEncoded in CBOR array headerEncoded in CBOR array header,
+>255 records in section		Encoded in CBOR array header,
+>255 records in section
Question sectionClass, type, and name elidedType > 255,
+label len. > 23		Type > 255,
+Class > 255,
+label len. > 23
Standard RRClass, type, and name elided,
+rdata len. < 24		Type > 255,
+label len. > 23
+rdata len. > 255		Type > 255,
+Class > 255,
+label len. > 23
+rdata len. > 255
Standard RR with name rdataClass, type, and name elided,
+TBDt(i) with i < 24		Type > 255,
+label len. > 23
+name uncompressed		Type > 255,
+Class > 255,
+label len. > 23
+name uncompressed
EDNS Opt Pseudo-RRAll EDNS(0) fields elidedRcode < 24,
+DO flag set,
+ 		UDP payload
+len. > 255
+Rcode > 255
+Version > 255
+DO flag set
EDNS OptionCode < 24
+Length < 24		Code < 24
+Length > 255		Code > 255
+Length > 255
+
+
+
+
+
+

+Appendix C. Change Log +

+
+
+

+C.1. Since draft-lenders-dns-cbor-08 +

+
    +
  • +

    Clarify why question section was designed the way it is

    +
    • +
  • +

    Add answer section to queries for Known Answers in mDNS

    +
    • +
  • +

    Express names as sequence of labels

    +
    • +
  • +

    Provide dedicated types for more structured RDATA

    +
    • +
  • +

    Add RFC1035-like name compression

    +
    • +
  • +

    Add switching boolean to query message to explicitly have question present in response

    +
    • +
  • +

    Make EDNS options a map

    +
    • +
  • +

    Update examples and comparison table in appendices

    +
    • +
  • +

    Update implementation section

    +
    • +
+
+
+
+
+

+C.2. Since draft-lenders-dns-cbor-07 +

+
    +
  • +

    Add Appendix B with comparison to classic DNS wire format

    +
    • +
  • +

    "wire format" -> "classic DNS wire format"

    +
    • +
+
+
+
+
+

+C.3. Since draft-lenders-dns-cbor-06 +

+
    +
  • +

    Fixes wording and spelling mistakes

    +
    • +
+
+
+
+
+

+C.4. Since draft-lenders-dns-cbor-05 +

+
    +
  • +

    Fix Section 7.2.1 title

    +
    • +
  • +

    Amend for capability to carry more than one question

    +
    • +
  • +

    Hint at future of name compression in later draft versions

    +
    • +
  • +

    Use canonical name for CBOR-packed

    +
    • +
+
+
+
+
+

+C.5. Since draft-lenders-dns-cbor-04 +

+
    +
  • +

    Add Implementation Status section

    +
    • +
  • +

    Remove int as representation for rdata

    +
    • +
  • +

    Add note on representation of more structured rdata

    +
    • +
+
+
+
+
+

+C.6. Since draft-lenders-dns-cbor-03 +

+
    +
  • +

    Provide format description for EDNS OPT Pseudo-RRs

    +
    • +
  • +

    Simplify CDDL to more idiomatic style

    +
    • +
  • +

    Remove DNS transaction IDs

    +
    • +
+
+
+
+
+

+C.7. Since draft-lenders-dns-cbor-02 +

+
    +
  • +

    Add Discussion section and note on compression

    +
    • +
+
+
+
+
+

+C.8. Since draft-lenders-dns-cbor-01 +

+
    +
  • +

    Use MIME type parameter for packed instead of own MIME type

    +
    • +
  • +

    Update definitions to accommodate for TID and flags, as well as more sections in query

    +
    • +
  • +

    Clarify fallback to wire-format

    +
    • +
+
+
+
+
+

+C.9. Since draft-lenders-dns-cbor-00 +

+
    +
  • +

    Add support for DNS transaction IDs

    +
    • +
  • +

    Name and Address compression utilizing CBOR-packed

    +
    • +
  • +

    Minor fixes to CBOR EDN and CDDL

    +
    • +
+
+
+
+
+
+
+

+Acknowledgments +

+

TODO acknowledge.

+
+
+
+
+

+Authors' Addresses +

+
+
Martine Sophie Lenders
+
TUD Dresden University of Technology
+
Helmholtzstr. 10
+
+D-01069 Dresden +
+
Germany
+ +
+
+
Carsten Bormann
+
Universität Bremen TZI
+
Postfach 330440
+
+D-28359 Bremen +
+
Germany
+
+Phone: ++49-421-218-63921 +
+ +
+
+
Thomas C. Schmidt
+
HAW Hamburg
+ +
+
+
Matthias Wählisch
+
TUD Dresden University of Technology & Barkhausen Institut
+
Helmholtzstr. 10
+
+D-01069 Dresden +
+
Germany
+ +
+
+
+ + + diff --git a/draft-lenders-dns-cbor-09/draft-lenders-dns-cbor.txt b/draft-lenders-dns-cbor-09/draft-lenders-dns-cbor.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..a6d25db --- /dev/null +++ b/draft-lenders-dns-cbor-09/draft-lenders-dns-cbor.txt @@ -0,0 +1,1736 @@ + + + + +CBOR M. S. Lenders +Internet-Draft TU Dresden +Intended status: Standards Track C. Bormann +Expires: 24 April 2025 Universität Bremen TZI + T. C. Schmidt + HAW Hamburg + M. Wählisch + TU Dresden & Barkhausen Institut + 21 October 2024 + + + A Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR) of DNS Messages + draft-lenders-dns-cbor-latest + +Abstract + + This document specifies a compressed data format of DNS messages + using the Concise Binary Object Representation [RFC8949]. The + primary purpose is to keep DNS messages small in constrained + networks. + +About This Document + + This note is to be removed before publishing as an RFC. + + The latest revision of this draft can be found at https://anr-bmbf- + pivot.github.io/draft-lenders-dns-cbor/draft-lenders-dns-cbor.html. + Status information for this document may be found at + https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-lenders-dns-cbor/. + + Discussion of this document takes place on the CBOR Working Group + mailing list (mailto:cbor@ietf.org), which is archived at + https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/cbor/. Subscribe at + https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cbor/. + + Source for this draft and an issue tracker can be found at + https://github.com/anr-bmbf-pivot/draft-lenders-dns-cbor. + +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 https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. + + + + +Lenders, et al. Expires 24 April 2025 [Page 1] + +Internet-Draft dns+cbor October 2024 + + + 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 24 April 2025. + +Copyright Notice + + Copyright (c) 2024 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 (https://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 to this document. Code Components + extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as + described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are + provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License. + +Table of Contents + + 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 + 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 + 3. CBOR Representations (application/dns+cbor) . . . . . . . . . 4 + 3.1. Domain Name Representation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 + 3.1.1. Name Compression . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 + 3.2. DNS Resource Records . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 + 3.2.1. Standard RRs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 + 3.2.2. EDNS OPT Pseudo-RRs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 + 3.3. DNS Queries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 + 3.4. DNS Responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 + 4. Further Compression with CBOR-packed . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 + 4.1. Media Type Negotiation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 + 4.2. DNS Representation in CBOR-packed . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 + 4.3. Compression . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 + 5. Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 + 5.1. Python decoder/encoder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 + 5.2. Embedded decoder/encoder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 + 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 + 7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 + 7.1. Media Type Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 + 7.1.1. "application/dns+cbor" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 + 7.2. CoAP Content-Format Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 + 7.2.1. "application/dns+cbor" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 + 7.2.2. "application/dns+cbor;packed=1" . . . . . . . . . . . 20 + 7.3. CBOR Tags Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 + + + +Lenders, et al. Expires 24 April 2025 [Page 2] + +Internet-Draft dns+cbor October 2024 + + + 8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 + 8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 + 8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 + Appendix A. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 + A.1. DNS Queries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 + A.2. DNS Responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 + Appendix B. Comparison to Classic DNS Wire Format . . . . . . . 26 + Appendix C. Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 + C.1. Since draft-lenders-dns-cbor-08 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 + C.2. Since draft-lenders-dns-cbor-07 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 + C.3. Since draft-lenders-dns-cbor-06 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 + C.4. Since draft-lenders-dns-cbor-05 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 + C.5. Since draft-lenders-dns-cbor-04 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 + C.6. Since draft-lenders-dns-cbor-03 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 + C.7. Since draft-lenders-dns-cbor-02 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 + C.8. Since draft-lenders-dns-cbor-01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 + C.9. Since draft-lenders-dns-cbor-00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 + Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 + Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 + +1. Introduction + + In constrained networks [RFC7228], the link layer may restrict the + payload sizes of frames to only a few hundreds bytes. Encrypted DNS + resolution, such as DNS over HTTPS (DoH) [RFC8484] or DNS over CoAP + (DoC) [I-D.ietf-core-dns-over-coap], may lead to DNS message sizes + that exceed this limit, even when implementing header compression + such as 6LoWPAN IPHC [RFC6282] or SCHC [RFC8724], [RFC8824]. + + Although adoption layers such as 6LoWPAN [RFC4944] or SCHC [RFC8724] + offer fragmentation to comply with small MTUs, fragmentation should + be avoided in constrained networks. Fragmentation combined with high + packet loss multiplies the likelihood of loss. Hence, a compression + format that reduces fragmentation of DNS messages is beneficial. + + This document specifies a compressed data format for DNS messages + using Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR) [RFC8949] encoding. + Additionally, unnecessary or redundant information are stripped off + DNS messages. To use the outcome of this specification in DoH and + DoC, this document also specifies a Media Type header for DoH and a + Content-Format option for DoC. + +2. Terminology + + CBOR types (unsigned integer, byte string, text string, arrays, etc.) + are used as defined in [RFC8949]. + + + + + +Lenders, et al. Expires 24 April 2025 [Page 3] + +Internet-Draft dns+cbor October 2024 + + + The terms "DNS server", "DNS client", and "(DNS) resolver" are used + as defined in [RFC8499]. + + A DNS query is a message that queries DNS information from an + upstream DNS resolver. The reply to that is a DNS response. + + The DNS message format specified in [RFC1035] for DNS over UDP we + call "classic DNS format" throughout this document or refer to it by + its media type "application/dns-message" as specified in [RFC8484]. + + The term "constrained networks" is used as defined in [RFC7228]. + + The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", + "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and + "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in + BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all + capitals, as shown here. + +3. CBOR Representations (application/dns+cbor) + + DNS messages are represented as CBOR arrays to minimize overhead. + All CBOR items used in this specification are of definite length. + CBOR arrays that do not follow the length definitions of this or of + follow-up specifications, MUST be silently ignored. CBOR arrays that + exceed the message size provided by the transport, MUST be silently + ignored. It is assumed that DNS query and DNS response are + distinguished message types and that the query can be mapped to the + response by the transfer protocol of choice. To define the + representation of binary objects we use the Concise Data Definition + Language (CDDL) [RFC8610]. For examples, we use the CBOR Extended + Diagnostic Notation [I-D.ietf-cbor-edn-literals]. + + dns-message = dns-query / dns-response + + Figure 1: This document defines both DNS Queries and Responses in + CDDL + + If, for any reason, a DNS message cannot be represented in the CBOR + format specified in this document, or if unreasonable overehead is + introduced, a fallback to another DNS message format, e.g., the + classic DNS format specified in [RFC1035], MUST always be possible. + + + + + + + + + + +Lenders, et al. Expires 24 April 2025 [Page 4] + +Internet-Draft dns+cbor October 2024 + + +3.1. Domain Name Representation + + Domain names are represented by a sequence of one or more (unicode) + text strings. For instance, "example.org" would be represented as + "example","org" in CBOR diagnostic notation. The root domain "." is + represented as an empty string "". The absence of any label or tag + TBDt (see Section 3.1.1 below) means the name is elided. For the + purpose of this document, domain names remain case-insensitive as + specified in [RFC1035]. + + The representation of a domain name is defined in Figure 2. + + This sequence of text strings is supposed to be embedded into a + surrounding array, usually the query or resource record. + +3.1.1. Name Compression + + domain-name = ( + * label, + ? ( #6.TBDt(uint) / label ), + ) + label = tstr + + Figure 2: Domain Name Definition + + Names are compressed by pointing to existing labels in the message. + CBOR objects are typically decoded depth-first. Whenever we + encounter a label we take the value of a counter _c_ as the position + of that label. The counter _c_ is then increased. + + A tag TBDt may follow any sequence of labels, even an empty sequence. + This tag TBDt encapsulates an unsigned integer _i_ which points to a + label at position _i_. _i_ MUST be smaller than _c_. A name then is + decoded as any label that then preceded tag TBDt(_i_) and all labels + including and following at position _i_ are appended. This includes + any further occurrence of tag TBDt after the referenced label + sequence, though the decoding stops after this tag was recursively + decoded. + + For instance, the name "www.example.org" can be encountered twice in + the example in Figure 3 (notated in CBOR Extended Diagnostic + Notation, see [I-D.ietf-cbor-edn-literals]). + + + + + + + + + +Lenders, et al. Expires 24 April 2025 [Page 5] + +Internet-Draft dns+cbor October 2024 + + + [ + # AAAA (28, elided) question for "example.org" + [ "example" / c == 0 /, "org" / c == 1 / ], + # Answer section: + [ + # "example.org" (elided) CNAME (5) is "www.example.org" + [ 5, "www" / c == 2 /, TBDt(0) / references c == 0 / ], + # "www.example.org" AAAA (28, elided) is 2001:db8::1 + [ + TBDt(2) / references c == 2 /, + h'20010db8000000000000000000000001' + ] + ] + ] + + Figure 3: Example for name compression. + + The pseudo-code for this DNS name suffix extension algorithm can be + seen in Figure 4. + + function decode_name(obj: cbor_obj, cbor_ptr: cbor_major_type): list + { + name: list = [] + visited: set = {} + while (typeof(cbor_ptr) in {tstr, tag}): + if typeof(cbor_ptr) == tag: + if cbor_ptr.tag != TBDt: + break + i: uint = cbor_ptr.value + if i-th text string after (depth first) cbor_ptr: + return ERROR("Forward reference not allowed") + cbor_ptr = + jump to i-th text string (depth first) in obj + if cbor_ptr in visited: + return ERROR("Circular reference") + # cbor_ptr should be of type tstr at this point + name.append(cbor_ptr) + visited.add(cbor_ptr) + return name + } + + Figure 4: Name Suffix Extension Algorithm + + The tag TBDt is included in the definition in Figure 2. + + + + + + + +Lenders, et al. Expires 24 April 2025 [Page 6] + +Internet-Draft dns+cbor October 2024 + + +3.2. DNS Resource Records + + This document specifies the representation of both standard DNS + resource records (RRs, see [RFC1035]) and EDNS option pseudo-RRs (see + [RFC6891]. + // Also add capability to summarize Resource Record Sets to one + // array, e.g. ["example","org",3600,1,[b'c0002563', h'c00021ab']]? + // + // -- mlenders If for any reason, a resource record cannot be + represented in the given formats, they can be represented in their + binary wire-format form as a byte string. + + Further special records, e.g., TSIG can be defined in follow-up + specifications and are out of scope of this document. + + The representation of a DNS resource records is defined in Figure 5. + + dns-rr = rr / #6.141(opt-rr) / bstr + + Figure 5: DNS Resource Record Definition + +3.2.1. Standard RRs + + Standard DNS resource records are encoded as CBOR arrays containing 2 + or more entries in the following order: + + 1. An optional name (as text string, see Section 3.1), + + 2. A TTL (as unsigned integer), + + 3. An optional record type (as unsigned integer), + + 4. An optional record class (as unsigned integer), and lastly + + 5. A record data entry (as byte string, domain name, or array for + dedicated record data representation). + + If the first item of the resource record is a text string, it is the + first label of a domain name (see Section 3.1). If the name is + elided, the name is derived from the question section of the message. + For responses, the question section is either taken from the query + (see Section 3.3) or provided with the response see Section 3.4. The + query may be derived from the context of the transfer protocol. + + If the record type is elided, the record type from the question is + assumed. If record class is elided, the record class from the + question is assumed. When a record class is required to be + expressed, the record type MUST also be provided. + + + +Lenders, et al. Expires 24 April 2025 [Page 7] + +Internet-Draft dns+cbor October 2024 + + + The byte string format of the record data as a byte string follows + the classic DNS format as specified in Section 3.3 [RFC1035] (or + other specifications of the respective record type). Note that the + CBOR format does not include the RDLENGTH field from the classic + format as this value is encoded in the length field of the CBOR + header of the byte string. + + If the record data represents a domain name (e.g., for CNAME or PTR + records), the record data MAY be represented as domain name as + specified in Section 3.1. This can save 1 byte of data, as the zero + byte at the end of the name is not necessary with the CBOR format. + Only 1 byte is required to define type and length of each text string + representing a label up until a string length of 23 characters, + amortizing to the same remaining length as in the name representation + in the classic format. This way of representing the record data also + means that name compression (see Section 3.1.1) can also be used on + it. + + Depending on the record type, the record data may also be expressed + as an array. Some initial array types are specified below. Future + specifications can extend the definition for $rdata-array in + Figure 6. These extensions mainly serve to expose names to name + compression (see Section 3.1.1). There is an argument to be made for + CBOR-structured formats of other record data representations (e.g. + DNSKEY or RRSIG), but structuring such records as an array usually + adds more overhead than just transferring the byte representation. + As such, structured record data that do not contain names are always + to be represented as a byte string. + + max-uint8 = 0..255 + max-uint16 = 0..65535 + max-uint32 = 0..4294967295 + ttl = max-uint32 + rr = [ + ? domain-name, + ttl: ttl, + type-spec-rdata, + ] + type-spec-rdata = ( + ? type-spec, + rdata: bstr // ( domain-name ), + ) + type-spec-rdata //= ( $$structured-ts-rd ) + type-spec = ( + record-type: max-uint16, + ? record-class: max-uint16, + ) + + + + +Lenders, et al. Expires 24 April 2025 [Page 8] + +Internet-Draft dns+cbor October 2024 + + + Figure 6: DNS Standard Resource Record Definition + +3.2.1.1. SOA Record Data + + The record data of RRs with record-type = 6 (SOA) MAY be expressed as + an array with at least 7 entries representing the 7 parts of the SOA + resource record defined in [RFC1035] in the following order: + + * MNAME as a domain name (see Section 3.1), + + * SERIAL as an unsigned integer, + + * REFRESH as an unsigned integer, + + * RETRY as an unsigned integer, + + * EXPIRE as an unsigned integer, + + * MINIMUM as an unsigned integer, and + + * RNAME as a domain name (see Section 3.1). + + MNAME and RNAME are put to the beginning and end of the array, + respectively, to keep their labels apart. + + The definition for MX record data can be seen in Figure 7. + + $$structured-ts-rd //= ( + 6, ; record-type = SOA + ? 1, ; record-class = IN + soa, + ) + + soa = [ + domain-name, ; mname + serial: max-uint32, + refresh: max-uint32, + retry: max-uint32, + expire: max-uint32, + minimum: max-uint32, + domain-name, ; rname + ] + + Figure 7: SOA Resource Record Data Definition + + + + + + + +Lenders, et al. Expires 24 April 2025 [Page 9] + +Internet-Draft dns+cbor October 2024 + + +3.2.1.2. MX Record Data + + The record data of RRs with record-type = 15 (MX) MAY be expressed as + an array with at least 2 entries representing the 2 parts of the MX + resource record defined in [RFC1035] in the following order: + + * PREFERENCE as an unsigned integer and + + * EXCHANGE as a domain name (see Section 3.1). + + The definition for MX record data can be seen in Figure 8. + + $$structured-ts-rd //= ( + 15, ; record-type = MX + ? 1, ; record-class = IN + mx, + ) + + mx = [ + preference: max-uint16, + domain-name, ; exchange + ] + + Figure 8: MX Resource Record Data Definition + +3.2.1.3. SRV Record Data + + The record data of RRs with record-type = 33 (SRV) MAY be expressed + as an array with at least 3 entries representing the parts of the SRV + resource record defined in [RFC2782] in the following order: + + * Priority as an unsigned integer, + + * an optional Weight as an unsigned integer, + + * Port as an unsigned integer, + + * Target as a domain name (see Section 3.1). + + If the weight is present or not can be determined by the number of + unsigned integers before Target. 2 unsigned integers before the + Target mean the weight was elided and defaults to 0. 3 unsigned + integers before the Target mean the weight is in the second position + of the record data array. The default of 0 was picked, as this is + the value domain administrators should pick when there is no server + selection to do [RFC2782]. + + The definition for SRV record data can be seen in Figure 9. + + + +Lenders, et al. Expires 24 April 2025 [Page 10] + +Internet-Draft dns+cbor October 2024 + + + $$structured-ts-rd //= ( + 33, ; record-type = SRV + ? 1, ; record-class = IN + srv, + ) + + srv = [ + priority: max-uint16, + ? weight: max-uint16 .default 0, + port: max-uint16, + domain-name, ; target + ] + + Figure 9: SRV Resource Record Data Definition + +3.2.1.4. SVCB and HTTPS Record Data + + The record data of RRs with record-type = 64 (SVCB) and record-type = + 65 (HTTPS) MAY be expressed as an array with at least 3 entries + representing the 3 parts of the SVCB/HTTPS resource record defined in + [RFC9460] in the following order: + + * An optional SvcPriority as an unsigned integer, + + * An optional TargetName as a domain name (see Section 3.1), and + + * SvcParams as an array of alternating pairs of SvcParamKey (as + unsigned integer) and SvcParamValue (as byte string). + + If the SvcPriority is present can be determined by checking if the + record data array starts with an unsigned integer or not. If the + array does not start with an unsigned integer, the SvcPriority is + elided and defaults to 0, i.e., the record is in AliasMode (see + Section 2.4.2 of [RFC9460]). If the array starts with a unsigned + integer, it is the SvcPriority. + + If the TargetName is present can be determined by checkinf if the + record data array has a text string after the SvcPriority, i.e., if + the SvcPriority is elided the array would start with a text string or + tag TBDt. If there is no text string or tag TBDt after the + SvcPriority, the TargetName is elided and defaults to the sequence of + text strings "" (i.e. the root domain "." in the common name + representation defined in Section 2.3.1 of [RFC1035], see + Section 3.1), see Section 2.5 of [RFC9460]. If there is a text + string or tag TBDt after the SvcPriority, the TargetName is not + elided and in the domain name form specified in Section 3.1. + + + + + +Lenders, et al. Expires 24 April 2025 [Page 11] + +Internet-Draft dns+cbor October 2024 + + + The definition for SVCB and HTTPS record data can be seen in + Figure 10. + + $$structured-ts-rd //= ( + 64 / 65, ; record-type = SVCB or HTTPS + ? 1, ; record-class = IN + svcb, + ) + + svcb = [ + ? svc-priority: max-uint16 .default 0, + ? domain-name, ; target name + svc-params: [ *svc-param-pair ], + ] + + svc-param-pair = ( + svc-param-key: max-uint16, + svc-param-value: bstr, + ) + + Figure 10: SVCB and HTTPS Resource Record Data Definition + + The SvcParams are provided as an array rather than a map, as their + order needs to be preserved [RFC9460] which can not be guaranteed for + maps. + +3.2.2. EDNS OPT Pseudo-RRs + + EDNS OPT Pseudo-RRs are represented as a CBOR array. To distinguish + them from normal standard RRs, they are marked with tag TBD141. + + Name and record type can be elided as they are always "." and OPT + (41), respectively [RFC6891]. + + The UDP payload size may be the first element as an unsigned integer + in the array. It MUST be elided if its value is the default value of + 512, the maximum allowable size for unextended DNS over UDP (see + Sections 2.3.4 and 4.2.1 of [RFC1035]). + + The next element is a map of the options, with the option code + (unsigned integer) as key and the option data (byte string) as value. + + + + + + + + + + +Lenders, et al. Expires 24 April 2025 [Page 12] + +Internet-Draft dns+cbor October 2024 + + + After that, up to three unsigned integers are following. The first + being the extended flags as unsigned integer (implied to be 0 if + elided), the second the extended RCODE as an unsigned integer + (implied to be 0 if elided), and the third the EDNS version (implied + to be 0 if elided). They are dependent on each of their previous + elements. If the EDNS version is not elided, both extended flags and + extended RCODE MUST not be elided. If the RCODE is not elided the + extended flags MUST not be elided. + + Note that future EDNS versions may require a different format than + the one described above. + + opt-rr = [ + ? udp-payload-size: max-uint16 .default 512, + options: {* ocode => odata }, + ? opt-rcode-v-flags, + ] + ocode = max-uint16 + odata = bstr + opt-rcode-v-flags = ( + flags: max-uint16 .default 0, + ? opt-rcode-v, + ) + rcode = 0..4095 + opt-rcode-v = ( + rcode: rcode .default 0, + ? version: max-uint8 .default 0, + ) + + Figure 11: DNS OPT Resource Record Definition + +3.3. DNS Queries + + DNS queries are encoded as CBOR arrays containing up to 6 entries in + the following order: + + 1. An optional boolean field, + + 2. An optional flag field (as unsigned integer), + + 3. The question section (as array), + + 4. An optional answer section (as array), + + 5. An optional authority section (as array), and + + 6. An optional additional section (as array) + + + + +Lenders, et al. Expires 24 April 2025 [Page 13] + +Internet-Draft dns+cbor October 2024 + + + If the first item is a boolean and when true, it tells the responding + resolver that it MUST include the question section in its response. + If that boolean is not present, it is assumed to be false. + + If the first item of the query is an array, it is the question + section, if it is an unsigned integer, it is as flag field and maps + to the header flags in [RFC1035] and the "DNS Header Flags" IANA + registry including the QR flag and the Opcode. + + If the flags are elided, the value 0 is assumed. + + This specification assumes that the DNS messages are sent over a + transfer protocol that can map the queries to their responses, e.g., + DNS over HTTPS [RFC8484] or DNS over CoAP + [I-D.ietf-core-dns-over-coap]. As a consequence, the DNS transaction + ID is always elided and the value 0 is assumed. + + A question record within the question section is encoded as a CBOR + array containing the following entries: + + 1. The queried name (as domain name, see Section 3.1) which MUST not + be elided, + + 2. An optional record type (as unsigned integer), and + + 3. An optional record class (as unsigned integer) + + If the record type is elided, record type AAAA as specified in + [RFC3596] is assumed. If the record class is elided, record class IN + as specified in [RFC1035] is assumed. When a record class is + required, the record type MUST also be provided. + + There usually is only one question record [RFC9619], which is why the + question section is a flat array and not nested like the other + sections. This serves to safe overhead from the additional CBOR + array header. In the rare cases when there is more than one question + record in the question section, the next question just follows. In + this case, for every question but the last, the record type MUST be + included, i.e., it is not optional. This way it is ensured that the + parser can distinguish each question by looking up the name first. + + The remainder of the query is either empty or MUST consist of up to + three extra arrays. + + If one extra array is in the query, it encodes the additional section + of the query as an array of DNS resource records (see Section 3.2). + If two extra arrays are in the query, they encode, in that order, the + authority and additional sections of the query each as an array of + + + +Lenders, et al. Expires 24 April 2025 [Page 14] + +Internet-Draft dns+cbor October 2024 + + + DNS resource records (see Section 3.2). If three extra arrays are in + the query, they encode, in that order, the answer section, the + authority, and additional sections of the query each as an array of + DNS resource records (see Section 3.2). + + As such, the highest precedence in elision is given to the answer + section, as it only occurs with mDNS to signify Known Answers + [RFC6762]. The lowest precedence is given to the additional section, + as it may contain EDNS OPT Pseudo-RRs, which are common in queries + (see Section 3.2.2). + + The representation of a DNS query is defined in Figure 12. + + dns-query = [ + ? incl-question: bool .default false, + ? flags: max-uint16 .default 0x0000, + question-section, + ? query-extra-sections, + ] + question-section = [ + * full-question, + ? last-question, + ] + full-question = ( + domain-name, + type-spec, + ) + last-question = ( + domain-name, + ? type-spec, + ) + query-extra-sections = ( + ? answer-section, + extra-sections, + ) + answer-section = [+ dns-rr] + extra-sections = ( + ? authority: [+ dns-rr], + additional: [+ dns-rr], + ) + + Figure 12: DNS Query Definition + +3.4. DNS Responses + + A DNS response is encoded as a CBOR array containing up to 5 entries. + + 1. An optional flag field (as unsigned integer), + + + +Lenders, et al. Expires 24 April 2025 [Page 15] + +Internet-Draft dns+cbor October 2024 + + + 2. An optional question section (as array, encoded as described in + Section 3.3) + + 3. The answer section (as array), + + 4. An optional authority section (as array), and + + 5. An optional additional section (as array) + + As for queries, the DNS transaction ID is elided and implied to be 0. + + If the CBOR array is a response to a query for which the flags + indicate that flags are set in the response, they MUST be set + accordingly and thus included in the response. If the flags are not + included, the flags are implied to be 0x8000 (everything unset except + for the QR flag). + + If the response includes only one array, then the DNS answer section + represents an array of one or more DNS Resource Records (see + Section 3.2). + + If the response includes more than 2 arrays, the first entry may be + the question section, identified by not being an array of arrays. If + it is present, it is followed by the answer section. The question + section is encoded as specified in Section 3.3. + + If the answer section is followed by one extra array, this array is + the additional section. Like the answer section, the additional + section is represented as an array of one or more DNS Resource + Records (see Section 3.2). + + If the answer section is followed by two extra arrays, the first is + the authority section, and the second is the additional section. The + authority section is also represented as an array of one or more DNS + Resource Records (see Section 3.2). + + The authority section is given precedence in elision over the + additional section, as due to EDNS options or, e.g., CNAME answers + that also provide the A/AAAA records. The additional section tends + to show up more often than the authority section. + + dns-response = [ + ? flags: max-uint16 .default 0x8000, + ? question-section, + answer-section, + ? extra-sections, + ] + + + + +Lenders, et al. Expires 24 April 2025 [Page 16] + +Internet-Draft dns+cbor October 2024 + + + Figure 13: DNS Response Definition + +4. Further Compression with CBOR-packed + + If both DNS server and client support CBOR-packed + [I-D.ietf-cbor-packed], it MAY be used for further compression in DNS + responses. Especially IPv6 addresses, e.g., in AAAA resource records + can benefit from straight referencing to compress common address + prefixes. + +4.1. Media Type Negotiation + + A DNS client uses the media type "application/dns+cbor;packed=1" to + negotiate (see, e.g., [RFC9110] or [RFC7252], Section 5.5.4) with the + DNS server whether the server supports packed CBOR. If it does, it + MAY request the response to be in CBOR-packed (media type + "application/dns+cbor;packed=1"). The server then SHOULD reply with + the response in CBOR-packed, which it also signals with media type + "application/dns+cbor;packed=1". + +4.2. DNS Representation in CBOR-packed + + The representation of DNS responses in CBOR-packed has the same + semantics as for tag TBD113 ([I-D.ietf-cbor-packed], Section 3.1) + with the rump being the compressed response. The difference to + [I-D.ietf-cbor-packed] is that tag TBD113 is OPTIONAL. + + Packed compression of queries is not specified, as apart from EDNS(0) + (see Section 3.2.2), they only consist of one question most of the + time, i.e., there is close to no redundancy. + +4.3. Compression + + The method of the compressor to construct the packing table, i.e., + how the compression is applied, is out of scope of this document. + Several potential compression algorithms were evaluated in [TBD]. + +5. Implementation Status + + This section records the status of known implementations of the + protocol defined by this specification at the time of posting of this + Internet-Draft, and is based on a proposal described in [RFC7942]. + The description of implementations in this section is intended to + assist the IETF in its decision processes in progressing drafts to + RFCs. Please note that the listing of any individual implementation + here does not imply endorsement by the IETF. Furthermore, no effort + has been spent to verify the information presented here that was + supplied by IETF contributors. This is not intended as, and must not + + + +Lenders, et al. Expires 24 April 2025 [Page 17] + +Internet-Draft dns+cbor October 2024 + + + be construed to be, a catalog of available implementations or their + features. Readers are advised to note that other implementations may + exist. + + According to [RFC7942], "this will allow reviewers and working groups + to assign due consideration to documents that have the benefit of + running code, which may serve as evidence of valuable experimentation + and feedback that have made the implemented protocols more mature. + It is up to the individual working groups to use this information as + they see fit". + +5.1. Python decoder/encoder + + The authors of this document provide a decoder/encoder implementation + (https://github.com/netd-tud/cbor4dns) of both the unpacked and + packed format specified in this document in Python. + + Level of maturity: prototype + + Version compatibility: draft-lenders-dns-cbor-08 + + License: MIT + + Contact information: Martine Lenders + + Last update of this information: July 2024 + +5.2. Embedded decoder/encoder + + The authors of this document provide a decoder/encoder implementation + (https://github.com/RIOT-OS/RIOT/pull/19989) of the unpacked format + specified in this document for the RIOT operating system. It can + only encode queries and decode responses. + + Level of maturity: prototype + + Version compatibility: draft-lenders-dns-cbor-05 + + License: MIT + + Contact information: Martine Lenders + + Last update of this information: October 2023 + +6. Security Considerations + + TODO Security + + + + +Lenders, et al. Expires 24 April 2025 [Page 18] + +Internet-Draft dns+cbor October 2024 + + +7. IANA Considerations + +7.1. Media Type Registration + + This document registers a media type for the serialization format of + DNS messages in CBOR. It follows the procedures specified in + [RFC6838]. + +7.1.1. "application/dns+cbor" + + Type name: application + + Subtype name: dns+cbor + + Required parameters: None + + Optional parameters: packed + + Encoding considerations: Must be encoded as using [RFC8949]. See + [TBD-this-spec] for details. + + Security considerations: See Section 6 of this draft + + Interoperability considerations: TBD + + Published specification: [TBD-this-spec] + + Applications that use this media type: TBD DNS over X systems + + Fragment Identifier Considerations: TBD + + Additional information: + + Deprecated alias names for this type: N/A + + Magic number(s): N/A + + File extension(s): dnsc + + Macintosh file type code(s): none + + Person & email address to contact for further information: Martine S. + Lenders m.lenders@fu-berlin.de (mailto:m.lenders@fu-berlin.de) + + Intended usage: COMMON + + Restrictions on Usage: None? + + + + +Lenders, et al. Expires 24 April 2025 [Page 19] + +Internet-Draft dns+cbor October 2024 + + + Author: Martine S. Lenders m.lenders@fu-berlin.de + (mailto:m.lenders@fu-berlin.de) + + Change controller: Martine S. Lenders m.lenders@fu-berlin.de + (mailto:m.lenders@fu-berlin.de) + + Provisional registrations? No + +7.2. CoAP Content-Format Registration + + IANA is requested to assign CoAP Content-Format ID for the new DNS + message media types in the "CoAP Content-Formats" sub-registry, + within the "CoRE Parameters" registry [RFC7252], corresponding the + "application/dns+cbor" media type specified in Section 7.1: + +7.2.1. "application/dns+cbor" + + Media-Type: application/dns+cbor + + Encoding: - + + Id: TBD + + Reference: [TBD-this-spec] + +7.2.2. "application/dns+cbor;packed=1" + + Media-Type: application/dns+cbor;packed=1 + + Encoding: - + + Id: TBD + + Reference: [TBD-this-spec] + +7.3. CBOR Tags Registry + + In the registry "CBOR Tags" [IANA.cbor-tags], IANA is requested to + allocate the tags defined in Table 1. + + + + + + + + + + + + +Lenders, et al. Expires 24 April 2025 [Page 20] + +Internet-Draft dns+cbor October 2024 + + + +========+===========+=================+========================+ + | Tag | Data Item | Semantics | Reference | + +========+===========+=================+========================+ + | TBDt | unsigned | DNS name suffix | draft-lenders-dns-cbor | + | | integer | extension | | + +--------+-----------+-----------------+------------------------+ + | TBD141 | array | CBOR EDNS | draft-lenders-dns-cbor | + | | | option record | | + +--------+-----------+-----------------+------------------------+ + + Table 1: Values for Tag Numbers + +8. References + +8.1. Normative References + + [I-D.ietf-cbor-edn-literals] + Bormann, C., "CBOR Extended Diagnostic Notation (EDN)", + Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-cbor-edn- + literals-12, 1 September 2024, + . + + [I-D.ietf-cbor-packed] + Bormann, C. and M. Gütschow, "Packed CBOR", Work in + Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-cbor-packed-13, 1 + September 2024, . + + [IANA.cbor-tags] + IANA, "Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR) Tags", + . + + [RFC1035] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and + specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, DOI 10.17487/RFC1035, + November 1987, . + + [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate + Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, + DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, + . + + [RFC2782] Gulbrandsen, A., Vixie, P., and L. Esibov, "A DNS RR for + specifying the location of services (DNS SRV)", RFC 2782, + DOI 10.17487/RFC2782, February 2000, + . + + + + + +Lenders, et al. Expires 24 April 2025 [Page 21] + +Internet-Draft dns+cbor October 2024 + + + [RFC3596] Thomson, S., Huitema, C., Ksinant, V., and M. Souissi, + "DNS Extensions to Support IP Version 6", STD 88, + RFC 3596, DOI 10.17487/RFC3596, October 2003, + . + + [RFC6838] Freed, N., Klensin, J., and T. Hansen, "Media Type + Specifications and Registration Procedures", BCP 13, + RFC 6838, DOI 10.17487/RFC6838, January 2013, + . + + [RFC6891] Damas, J., Graff, M., and P. Vixie, "Extension Mechanisms + for DNS (EDNS(0))", STD 75, RFC 6891, + DOI 10.17487/RFC6891, April 2013, + . + + [RFC7252] Shelby, Z., Hartke, K., and C. Bormann, "The Constrained + Application Protocol (CoAP)", RFC 7252, + DOI 10.17487/RFC7252, June 2014, + . + + [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC + 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, + May 2017, . + + [RFC8610] Birkholz, H., Vigano, C., and C. Bormann, "Concise Data + Definition Language (CDDL): A Notational Convention to + Express Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR) and + JSON Data Structures", RFC 8610, DOI 10.17487/RFC8610, + June 2019, . + + [RFC8949] Bormann, C. and P. Hoffman, "Concise Binary Object + Representation (CBOR)", STD 94, RFC 8949, + DOI 10.17487/RFC8949, December 2020, + . + + [RFC9460] Schwartz, B., Bishop, M., and E. Nygren, "Service Binding + and Parameter Specification via the DNS (SVCB and HTTPS + Resource Records)", RFC 9460, DOI 10.17487/RFC9460, + November 2023, . + +8.2. Informative References + + [I-D.ietf-core-dns-over-coap] + Lenders, M. S., Amsüss, C., Gündoğan, C., Schmidt, T. C., + and M. Wählisch, "DNS over CoAP (DoC)", Work in Progress, + Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-core-dns-over-coap-09, 21 + October 2024, . + + + +Lenders, et al. Expires 24 April 2025 [Page 22] + +Internet-Draft dns+cbor October 2024 + + + [RFC4944] Montenegro, G., Kushalnagar, N., Hui, J., and D. Culler, + "Transmission of IPv6 Packets over IEEE 802.15.4 + Networks", RFC 4944, DOI 10.17487/RFC4944, September 2007, + . + + [RFC6282] Hui, J., Ed. and P. Thubert, "Compression Format for IPv6 + Datagrams over IEEE 802.15.4-Based Networks", RFC 6282, + DOI 10.17487/RFC6282, September 2011, + . + + [RFC6762] Cheshire, S. and M. Krochmal, "Multicast DNS", RFC 6762, + DOI 10.17487/RFC6762, February 2013, + . + + [RFC7228] Bormann, C., Ersue, M., and A. Keranen, "Terminology for + Constrained-Node Networks", RFC 7228, + DOI 10.17487/RFC7228, May 2014, + . + + [RFC7942] Sheffer, Y. and A. Farrel, "Improving Awareness of Running + Code: The Implementation Status Section", BCP 205, + RFC 7942, DOI 10.17487/RFC7942, July 2016, + . + + [RFC8484] Hoffman, P. and P. McManus, "DNS Queries over HTTPS + (DoH)", RFC 8484, DOI 10.17487/RFC8484, October 2018, + . + + [RFC8499] Hoffman, P., Sullivan, A., and K. Fujiwara, "DNS + Terminology", RFC 8499, DOI 10.17487/RFC8499, January + 2019, . + + [RFC8724] Minaburo, A., Toutain, L., Gomez, C., Barthel, D., and JC. + Zuniga, "SCHC: Generic Framework for Static Context Header + Compression and Fragmentation", RFC 8724, + DOI 10.17487/RFC8724, April 2020, + . + + [RFC8824] Minaburo, A., Toutain, L., and R. Andreasen, "Static + Context Header Compression (SCHC) for the Constrained + Application Protocol (CoAP)", RFC 8824, + DOI 10.17487/RFC8824, June 2021, + . + + [RFC9110] Fielding, R., Ed., Nottingham, M., Ed., and J. Reschke, + Ed., "HTTP Semantics", STD 97, RFC 9110, + DOI 10.17487/RFC9110, June 2022, + . + + + +Lenders, et al. Expires 24 April 2025 [Page 23] + +Internet-Draft dns+cbor October 2024 + + + [RFC9619] Bellis, R. and J. Abley, "In the DNS, QDCOUNT Is (Usually) + One", RFC 9619, DOI 10.17487/RFC9619, July 2024, + . + +Appendix A. Examples + +A.1. DNS Queries + + A DNS query of the record AAAA in class IN for name "example.org" is + represented in CBOR extended diagnostic notation (EDN) (see Section 8 + in [RFC8949] and Appendix G in [RFC8610]) as follows: + + [["example", "org"]] + + A query of an A record for the same name is represented as + + [["example", "org", 1]] + + A query of ANY record for that name is represented as + + [["example", "org", 255, 255]] + +A.2. DNS Responses + + The responses to the examples provided in Appendix A.1 are shown + below. We use the CBOR extended diagnostic notation (EDN) (see + [I-D.ietf-cbor-edn-literals] and Appendix G in [RFC8610]). + + To represent an AAAA record with TTL 300 seconds for the IPv6 address + 2001:db8::1, a minimal response to [["example", "org"]] could be + + [[[300, h'20010db8000000000000000000000001']]] + + In this case, the name is derived from the query. + + If the name or the context is required, the following response would + also be valid: + + [[["example", "org", 300, h'20010db8000000000000000000000001']]] + + If the query can not be mapped to the response for some reason, a + response would look like: + + [["example", "org"], [[300, h'20010db8000000000000000000000001']]] + + To represent a minimal response of an A record with TTL 3600 seconds + for the IPv4 address 192.0.2.1, a minimal response to [["example", + "org", 1]] could be + + + +Lenders, et al. Expires 24 April 2025 [Page 24] + +Internet-Draft dns+cbor October 2024 + + + [[[300, h'c0000201']]] + + Note that here also the 1 of record type A can be elided, as this + record type is specified in the question section. + + Lastly, a response to [["example", "org", 255, 255]] could be + + [ + ["example", "org", 12, 1], + [[3600, "_coap", "_udp", "local"]], + [ + [3600, 2, "ns1", TBDt(0)], + [3600, 2, "ns2", TBDt(0)] + ], + [ + [ + TBDt(2), 3600, 28, + h'20010db8000000000000000000000001' + ], + [ + TBDt(2), 3600, 28, + h'20010db8000000000000000000000002' + ], + [ + TBDt(5), 3600, 28, + h'20010db8000000000000000000000035' + ], + [ + TBDt(6), 3600, 28, + h'20010db8000000000000000000003535' + ] + ] + ] + + This one advertises two local CoAP servers (identified by service + name _coap._udp.local) at 2001:db8::1 and 2001:db8::2 and two + nameservers for the example.org domain, ns1.example.org at + 2001:db8::35 and ns2.example.org at 2001.db8::3535. Each of the + transmitted records has a TTL of 3600 seconds. Note the use of name + compression (see Section 3.1.1) in this example. + + + + + + + + + + + +Lenders, et al. Expires 24 April 2025 [Page 25] + +Internet-Draft dns+cbor October 2024 + + +Appendix B. Comparison to Classic DNS Wire Format + + Table 2 shows a comparison between the classic DNS wire format and + the application/dns+cbor format. Note that the worst case results + typically appear only rarely in DNS. The classic DNS format is + preferred in those cases. A key for which configuration was used in + which case can be seen in Table 3. Any name label that is longer + than 23 bytes adds a name overhead of 1 byte to its CBOR type header. + // TBD: Also add structured RRs?. + // + // -- mlenders + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Lenders, et al. Expires 24 April 2025 [Page 26] + +Internet-Draft dns+cbor October 2024 + + + +========+==============+===========================================+ + |Item | Classic DNS| application/ | + | |format [bytes]| dns+cbor | + | | | [bytes] | + | | +=============+==============+==============+ + | | | best case| realistic| theoretical| + | | | | worst case| worst case| + +========+==============+=============+==============+==============+ + |Header | 4| 1| 4| 4| + |(ID & | | | | | + |Flags) | | | | | + +--------+--------------+-------------+--------------+--------------+ + |Count | 2| 1| 3| 3| + |fields | | | | | + +--------+--------------+-------------+--------------+--------------+ + |Question| 6 + name len.|2 + name len.| 6 + name len.| 9 + name len.| + |section | | | +| +| + | | | | name overhead| name overhead| + +--------+--------------+-------------+--------------+--------------+ + |Standard|12 + name len.| 3|14 + name len.|17 + name len.| + |RR | + rdata len.| + rdata len.|+ rdata len. +|+ rdata len. +| + | | | | name overhead| name overhead| + +--------+--------------+-------------+--------------+--------------+ + |Standard|12 + name len.|4 + TBDt len.|14 + name len.|16 + name len.| + |RR with | + rdata len.| |+ rdata len. +|+ rdata len. +| + |name | | |name overheads|name overheads| + |rdata | | | | | + +--------+--------------+-------------+--------------+--------------+ + |EDNS Opt| 11 + options| 2 + options| 6 + options| 14 + options| + |Pseudo- | | | | | + |RR | | | | | + +--------+--------------+-------------+--------------+--------------+ + |EDNS |4 + value len.| 2 +|4 + value len.|6 + value len.| + |Option | | value len.| | | + +--------+--------------+-------------+--------------+--------------+ + + Table 2: Comparison of application/dns+cbor to classic DNS format. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Lenders, et al. Expires 24 April 2025 [Page 27] + +Internet-Draft dns+cbor October 2024 + + + +===========+=======================================================+ + | Item | application/dns+cbor configuration | + | +==================+=================+==================+ + | | best case | realistic worst | theoretical | + | | | case | worst case | + +===========+==================+=================+==================+ + | Header | Flags elided | QR, Opcode, AA, | QR, Opcode, AA, | + | (ID & | | TC, or RD are | TC, or RD are | + | Flags) | | set | set | + +-----------+------------------+-----------------+------------------+ + | Count | Encoded in CBOR | Encoded in CBOR | Encoded in CBOR | + | fields | array header | array header, | array header, | + | | | >255 records in | >255 records in | + | | | section | section | + +-----------+------------------+-----------------+------------------+ + | Question | Class, type, | Type > 255, | Type > 255, | + | section | and name elided | label len. > 23 | Class > 255, | + | | | | label len. > 23 | + +-----------+------------------+-----------------+------------------+ + | Standard | Class, type, | Type > 255, | Type > 255, | + | RR | and name | label len. > 23 | Class > 255, | + | | elided, | rdata len. > | label len. > 23 | + | | rdata len. < 24 | 255 | rdata len. > 255 | + +-----------+------------------+-----------------+------------------+ + | Standard | Class, type, | Type > 255, | Type > 255, | + | RR with | and name | label len. > 23 | Class > 255, | + | name | elided, | name | label len. > 23 | + | rdata | TBDt(i) with | uncompressed | name | + | | i < 24 | | uncompressed | + +-----------+------------------+-----------------+------------------+ + | EDNS Opt | All EDNS(0) | Rcode < 24, | UDP payload | + | Pseudo-RR | fields elided | DO flag set, | len. > 255 | + | | | | Rcode > 255 | + | | | | Version > 255 | + | | | | DO flag set | + +-----------+------------------+-----------------+------------------+ + | EDNS | Code < 24 | Code < 24 | Code > 255 | + | Option | Length < 24 | Length > 255 | Length > 255 | + +-----------+------------------+-----------------+------------------+ + + Table 3: Configuration key for Table 2 . + + + + + + + + + + +Lenders, et al. Expires 24 April 2025 [Page 28] + +Internet-Draft dns+cbor October 2024 + + +Appendix C. Change Log + +C.1. Since draft-lenders-dns-cbor-08 + (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-lenders-dns-cbor-08) + + * Clarify why question section was designed the way it is + + * Add answer section to queries for Known Answers in mDNS + + * Express names as sequence of labels + + * Provide dedicated types for more structured RDATA + + * Add RFC1035-like name compression + + * Add switching boolean to query message to explicitly have question + present in response + + * Make EDNS options a map + + * Update examples and comparison table in appendices + + * Update implementation section + +C.2. Since draft-lenders-dns-cbor-07 + (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-lenders-dns-cbor-07) + + * Add Appendix B with comparison to classic DNS wire format + + * "wire format" -> "classic DNS wire format" + +C.3. Since draft-lenders-dns-cbor-06 + (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-lenders-dns-cbor-06) + + * Fixes wording and spelling mistakes + +C.4. Since draft-lenders-dns-cbor-05 + (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-lenders-dns-cbor-05) + + * Fix Section 7.2.1 title + + * Amend for capability to carry more than one question + + * Hint at future of name compression in later draft versions + + * Use canonical name for CBOR-packed + + + + + +Lenders, et al. Expires 24 April 2025 [Page 29] + +Internet-Draft dns+cbor October 2024 + + +C.5. Since draft-lenders-dns-cbor-04 + (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-lenders-dns-cbor-04) + + * Add Implementation Status section + + * Remove int as representation for rdata + + * Add note on representation of more structured rdata + +C.6. Since draft-lenders-dns-cbor-03 + (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-lenders-dns-cbor-03) + + * Provide format description for EDNS OPT Pseudo-RRs + + * Simplify CDDL to more idiomatic style + + * Remove DNS transaction IDs + +C.7. Since draft-lenders-dns-cbor-02 + (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-lenders-dns-cbor-02) + + * Add Discussion section and note on compression + +C.8. Since draft-lenders-dns-cbor-01 + (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-lenders-dns-cbor-01) + + * Use MIME type parameter for packed instead of own MIME type + + * Update definitions to accommodate for TID and flags, as well as + more sections in query + + * Clarify fallback to wire-format + +C.9. Since draft-lenders-dns-cbor-00 + (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-lenders-dns-cbor-00) + + * Add support for DNS transaction IDs + + * Name and Address compression utilizing CBOR-packed + + * Minor fixes to CBOR EDN and CDDL + +Acknowledgments + + TODO acknowledge. + +Authors' Addresses + + + + +Lenders, et al. Expires 24 April 2025 [Page 30] + +Internet-Draft dns+cbor October 2024 + + + Martine Sophie Lenders + TUD Dresden University of Technology + Helmholtzstr. 10 + D-01069 Dresden + Germany + Email: martine.lenders@tu-dresden.de + + + Carsten Bormann + Universität Bremen TZI + Postfach 330440 + D-28359 Bremen + Germany + Phone: +49-421-218-63921 + Email: cabo@tzi.org + + + Thomas C. Schmidt + HAW Hamburg + Email: t.schmidt@haw-hamburg.de + + + Matthias Wählisch + TUD Dresden University of Technology & Barkhausen Institut + Helmholtzstr. 10 + D-01069 Dresden + Germany + Email: m.waehlisch@tu-dresden.de + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Lenders, et al. Expires 24 April 2025 [Page 31] diff --git a/draft-lenders-dns-cbor-09/index.html b/draft-lenders-dns-cbor-09/index.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000..5555d50 --- /dev/null +++ b/draft-lenders-dns-cbor-09/index.html @@ -0,0 +1,45 @@ + + + + anr-bmbf-pivot/draft-lenders-dns-cbor draft-lenders-dns-cbor-09 preview + + + + +

Editor's drafts for draft-lenders-dns-cbor-09 branch of anr-bmbf-pivot/draft-lenders-dns-cbor

+ + + + + + +
dns+cborplain textsame as main
+ + + diff --git a/index.html b/index.html index a1304d1..b6e3f2e 100644 --- a/index.html +++ b/index.html @@ -24,6 +24,14 @@

Editor's drafts for main branch of draft-lenders-dns-cbor-09

+ + + + + + +
dns+cborplain textsame as main