CBOR M. S. Lenders
Internet-Draft TU Dresden
Intended status: Standards Track C. Bormann
Expires: 4 April 2024 Universität Bremen TZI
T. C. Schmidt
HAW Hamburg
M. Wählisch
TU Dresden
2 October 2023
A Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR) of DNS Messages
draft-lenders-dns-cbor-04
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 4 April 2024 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft dns+cbor October 2023
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 4 April 2024.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2023 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.2. DNS Resource Records . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.2.1. Standard RRs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2.2. EDNS OPT Pseudo-RRs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.3. DNS Queries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.4. DNS Responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4. Name and Address Compression with Packed CBOR . . . . . . . . 10
4.1. Media Type Negotiation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.2. DNS Representation in Packed CBOR . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.3. Compression . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5. Comparison to wire format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7.1. Media Type Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7.1.1. "application/dns+cbor" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7.2. CoAP Content-Format Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7.2.1. "application/dns-cbor" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7.2.2. "application/dns+cbor;packed=1" . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7.3. CBOR Tags Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Lenders, et al. Expires 4 April 2024 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft dns+cbor October 2023
Appendix A. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
A.1. DNS Queries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
A.2. DNS Responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Appendix B. Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
B.1. Since draft-lenders-dns-cbor-03 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
B.2. Since draft-lenders-dns-cbor-02 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
B.3. Since draft-lenders-dns-cbor-01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
B.4. Since draft-lenders-dns-cbor-00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
1. Introduction
In constrained networks [RFC7228], the link layer may restrict the
payload sizes 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, because fragmentation combined
with high packet loss multiplies the loss. As such, a compression
format for DNS messages is needed.
This document specifies a compressed data format for DNS messages.
DNS messages are encoded in Concise Binary Object Representation
(CBOR) [RFC8949] and, additionally, unnecessary or redundant
information is removed. 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].
TBD DNS server and client.
A DNS query is a message that queries DNS information from an
upstream DNS resolver.
The term "constrained networks" is used as defined in [RFC7228].
Lenders, et al. Expires 4 April 2024 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft dns+cbor October 2023
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)
To keep overhead minimal, a DNS message is represented as CBOR
arrays. All CBOR items used in this specification are of definite
length. CBOR arrays that do not follow the length definitions of
this or follow-up specifications, 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].
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 is not representable in the CBOR
format specified in this document, a fallback to the another DNS
message format, e.g., the classic DNS wire format, MUST always be
possible.
3.1. Domain Name Representation
Domain names are represented in their commonly known string format
(e.g., "example.org", see Section 2.3.1 in [RFC1035]) and in IDNA
encoding [RFC5890] as a text string. 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.
domain-name = tstr .regexp "([^.]+[.])*[^.]+"
Figure 2: Domain Name Definition
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]). If for any reason, a resource record can not be
represented in the given formats, they can be represented in their
binary wire-format form, as a byte string.
Lenders, et al. Expires 4 April 2024 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft dns+cbor October 2023
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 3.
dns-rr = rr / #6.141(opt-rr) / bstr
Figure 3: DNS Resource Record Definition
3.2.1. Standard RRs
Standard DNS resource records are encoded as CBOR arrays containing 2
to 5 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 unsigned integer, negative integer, byte
string, or text string).
If the first item of the resource record is a text string, it is its
name. 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, the record
type MUST also be provided.
The byte format of the record data as a byte string follows the wire
format as specified in Section 3.3 [RFC1035] (or other specifications
of the respective record type). Note that this format does not
include the RDLENGTH field from [RFC1035] as this value is encoded in
the length field of the CBOR byte string.
If the record data represents a domain name (e.g., for CNAME or PTR
records), the record data MAY be represented as a text string as
specified in Section 3.1. This can save 1 byte of data, because the
byte representation of DNS names requires both an additional byte to
define the length of the first name component and well as a zero byte
Lenders, et al. Expires 4 April 2024 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft dns+cbor October 2023
at the end of the name. With CBOR on the other hand only 1 byte is
required to define type and length of the text string up until a
string length of 23 characters. Likewise, if the record data is
purely a numerical value, it can be expressed as either an unsigned
or negative integer.
rr = [
? name: domain-name,
ttl: uint,
? type-spec,
rdata: int / bstr / domain-name,
]
type-spec = (
record-type: uint,
? record-class: uint,
)
Figure 4: DNS Standard Resource Record Definition
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 but it can be elided if it defaults to 512, the maximum
allowable size for DNS over UDP [RFC6891].
The next element is an array of the options, which are represented
two elements each, an unsigned integer, the option code, followed by
a byte string, the option data. Multiple options alternate between
unsigned integer and byte string within the array.
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.
TBD: reverse extended flags to get MSB-defined DO into LSB?
Lenders, et al. Expires 4 April 2024 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft dns+cbor October 2023
Note that future EDNS versions may require a different format than
the one described above.
opt-rr = [
? udp-payload-size: uint .default 512,
options: [* opt],
? opt-rcode-v-flags,
]
opt = (
ocode: uint,
odata: bstr,
)
opt-rcode-v-flags = (
flags: uint .default 0,
? opt-rcode-v,
)
opt-rcode-v = (
rcode: uint .default 0,
? version: uint .default 0,
)
Figure 5: DNS OPT Resource Record Definition
3.3. DNS Queries
DNS queries are encoded as CBOR arrays containing up to 5 entries in
the following order:
1. An optional flag field (as unsigned integer),
2. The question section (as array),
3. An optional authority section (as array), and
4. An optional additional section (as array)
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. It MUST be lesser
than 2^16.
If the flags are elided, the value 0 is assumed.
Lenders, et al. Expires 4 April 2024 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft dns+cbor October 2023
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.
The question section is encoded as a CBOR array containing up to 3
entries:
1. The queried name (as text string, see Section 3.1),
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.
The remainder of the query is either empty or MUST consist of up to
two arrays. The first array, if present, encodes the authority
section of the query as an array of DNS resource records (see
Section 3.2) The second array, if present, encodes the additional
section of the query as an array of DNS resource records (see
Section 3.2)
The representation of a DNS query is defined in Figure 6.
dns-query = [
? flags: uint .default 0x0000,
question-section,
? extra-sections,
]
question-section = [
name: domain-name,
? type-spec,
]
extra-sections = (
? authority: [+ dns-rr],
additional: [+ dns-rr],
)
Figure 6: DNS Query Definition
Lenders, et al. Expires 4 April 2024 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft dns+cbor October 2023
3.4. DNS Responses
DNS responses are encoded as a CBOR array containing up to 7 entries.
1. An optional flag field (as unsigned integer),
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 1 array, this is the DNS answer section
represented as 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 1 additional array, it is the
additional section (TBD: back choice to favor additional section by
empirical data). Like the answer section, the additional sections is
represented as an array of one or more DNS Resource Records (see
Section 3.2).
If the answer section is followed by 2 additional arrays, the first
is the authority section, and the second the additional section (TBD:
back choice to favor additional section by empirical data). The
authority section is also represented as an array of one or more DNS
Resource Records (see Section 3.2).
Lenders, et al. Expires 4 April 2024 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft dns+cbor October 2023
dns-response = [
? flags: uint .default 0x8000,
? question-section,
answer-section: [+ dns-rr],
? extra-sections,
]
Figure 7: DNS Response Definition
4. Name and Address Compression with Packed CBOR
If both DNS server and client support packed CBOR
[I-D.ietf-cbor-packed], it MAY be used for name and address
compression in DNS responses.
4.1. Media Type Negotiation
A DNS client uses media type "application/dns+cbor;packed=1" to
negotiate (see, e.g., [RFC9110] or [RFC7252], Section 5.5.4) with the
DNS server if the server supports packed CBOR. If it does, it MAY
request the response to be in packed CBOR (media type "applicaton/
dns+cbor;packed=1"). The server then SHOULD reply with the response
in packed CBOR.
4.2. DNS Representation in Packed CBOR
The representation of DNS responses in packed CBOR 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.
4.3. Compression
How the compressor constructs 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. Comparison to wire format
TBD: Table comparing DNS wire-format, DNS+CBOR, and DNS+CBOR-packed
Lenders, et al. Expires 4 April 2024 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft dns+cbor 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 (mailto:m.lenders@fu-berlin.de)
Lenders, et al. Expires 4 April 2024 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft dns+cbor October 2023
Intended usage: COMMON
Restrictions on Usage: None?
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 4 April 2024 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft dns+cbor October 2023
+========+===========+===============+========================+
| Tag | Data Item | Semantics | Reference |
+========+===========+===============+========================+
| 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-packed]
Bormann, C., "Packed CBOR", Work in Progress, Internet-
Draft, draft-ietf-cbor-packed-09, 10 July 2023,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-cbor-
packed-09>.
[IANA.cbor-tags]
IANA, "Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR) Tags",
<http://www.iana.org/assignments/cbor-tags>.
[RFC1035] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and
specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, DOI 10.17487/RFC1035,
November 1987, <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, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2119>.
[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,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3596>.
[RFC5890] Klensin, J., "Internationalized Domain Names for
Applications (IDNA): Definitions and Document Framework",
RFC 5890, DOI 10.17487/RFC5890, August 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5890>.
[RFC6838] Freed, N., Klensin, J., and T. Hansen, "Media Type
Specifications and Registration Procedures", BCP 13,
RFC 6838, DOI 10.17487/RFC6838, January 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6838>.
Lenders, et al. Expires 4 April 2024 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft dns+cbor October 2023
[RFC6891] Damas, J., Graff, M., and P. Vixie, "Extension Mechanisms
for DNS (EDNS(0))", STD 75, RFC 6891,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6891, April 2013,
<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, June 2014,
<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,
May 2017, <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,
June 2019, <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, December 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8949>.
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-03, 10 July
2023, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-
core-dns-over-coap-03>.
[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,
<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, September 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6282>.
[RFC7228] Bormann, C., Ersue, M., and A. Keranen, "Terminology for
Constrained-Node Networks", RFC 7228,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7228, May 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7228>.
Lenders, et al. Expires 4 April 2024 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft dns+cbor October 2023
[RFC8484] Hoffman, P. and P. McManus, "DNS Queries over HTTPS
(DoH)", RFC 8484, DOI 10.17487/RFC8484, October 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8484>.
[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,
<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, June 2021,
<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, June 2022,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9110>.
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
Section 8 in [RFC8949] 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
Lenders, et al. Expires 4 April 2024 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft dns+cbor October 2023
[[[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
Lenders, et al. Expires 4 April 2024 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft dns+cbor October 2023
[
["example.org", 12, 1],
[[3600, "_coap._udp.local"]],
[
[3600, 2, "ns1.example.org"],
[3600, 2, "ns2.example.org"]
],
[
[
"_coap._udp.local", 3600, 28,
h'20010db8000000000000000000000001'
],
[
"_coap._udp.local", 3600, 28,
h'20010db8000000000000000000000002'
],
[
"ns1.example.org", 3600, 28,
h'20010db8000000000000000000000035'
],
[
"ns2.example.org", 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.
Appendix B. Change Log
B.1. 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
Lenders, et al. Expires 4 April 2024 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft dns+cbor October 2023
B.2. Since draft-lenders-dns-cbor-02
(https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-lenders-dns-cbor-02)
* Add Discussion section and note on compression
B.3. 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
B.4. 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.
* Carsten Bormann
Authors' Addresses
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
Email: cabo@tzi.org
Thomas C. Schmidt
HAW Hamburg
Email: t.schmidt@haw-hamburg.de
Lenders, et al. Expires 4 April 2024 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft dns+cbor October 2023
Matthias Wählisch
TUD Dresden University of Technology
Helmholtzstr. 10
D-01069 Dresden
Germany
Email: m.waehlisch@tu-dresden.de
Lenders, et al. Expires 4 April 2024 [Page 19]