IETF Logo Mail Archive

[Anima] Re: Discovery optimization for Link Format: use a hostname instead of an IP literal?

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Sun, 12 October 2025 18:28 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: anima@mail2.ietf.org
Delivered-To: anima@mail2.ietf.org
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD7BE71F9EF3; Sun, 12 Oct 2025 11:28:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at ietf.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.99
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.99 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_TVD_MIME_EPI=0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: mail2.ietf.org (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (2048-bit key) reason="fail (body has been altered)" header.d=sandelman.ca
Received: from mail2.ietf.org ([166.84.6.31]) by localhost (mail2.ietf.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cEo4KUcLAByJ; Sun, 12 Oct 2025 11:28:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-256) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2251871F9ED6; Sun, 12 Oct 2025 11:28:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 928E639542; Sun, 12 Oct 2025 14:28:43 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (amavis, port 10024) with LMTP id GLFL0eCsRevP; Sun, 12 Oct 2025 14:28:42 -0400 (EDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sandelman.ca; s=mail; t=1760293722; bh=aFuuFcMp4YlIvFzq8aRvLrD7hJZkPnqBLVBrkWNn9iY=; h=From:To:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=dWla7GmI78abDuRxI6eEko7w77/2nEnNt3idx+olzA1+LH40WYionyrvs+kUxp9+Z p8WP342/B+bQugyJIjd+k5r0oBod114MpnXoxxgmWjiQoKjNTbLGJO85SnCUMh0YHR BOkOTWoJ/xdvizigQGrlthiH6t0BTRb2sptVxFBLrqyI/P23trdf3sYS8E5ET5AITB qKRX8mHNTBSue3l23LdbCPnRGGRBMSuieBaR8S5hWA6jq9gmUwyFFn91PE1HFcvz78 auXotT8XOolmxAnf8Y+Z/ixMbPU/OONf4KfedNq0F/w06/m+k8c7upyDPHsZdSsPax rZyLV3Z4juyiQ==
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.21]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 277CD39541; Sun, 12 Oct 2025 14:28:42 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from obiwan.sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [127.0.0.1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C8081B7; Sun, 12 Oct 2025 14:28:42 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Esko Dijk <esko.dijk=40iotconsultancy.nl@dmarc.ietf.org>, core@ietf.org, anima@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <c8e08550-9249-470f-b48c-a8a5a0d30fce@iotconsultancy.nl>
References: <819aad36-e05e-4404-af75-56c38fe85032@iotconsultancy.nl> <aNXQvUPMqW7O5nHR@faui48e.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <0c2017ba-1f95-4a79-9555-00b9b46f9f93@iotconsultancy.nl> <58964cc2-0b20-4a8f-8fca-b42789fb6467@gmail.com> <aNcBVCHzjkCOxu0X@hephaistos.amsuess.com> <31adde90-35af-47f0-a021-c8751dec7ae8@gmail.com> <c8e08550-9249-470f-b48c-a8a5a0d30fce@iotconsultancy.nl>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6+git; nmh 1.8+dev; GNU Emacs 28.2
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0;<'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2025 14:28:42 -0400
Message-ID: <16711.1760293722@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
Message-ID-Hash: GBOXMLRKTP3XJEGHLJ7SML56UBE5P7XG
X-Message-ID-Hash: GBOXMLRKTP3XJEGHLJ7SML56UBE5P7XG
X-MailFrom: mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-anima.ietf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc6
Precedence: list
Subject: [Anima] Re: Discovery optimization for Link Format: use a hostname instead of an IP literal?
List-Id: Autonomic Networking Integrated Model and Approach <anima.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/anima/_JbK65boutBkNJJFbTcdS1sunBI>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/anima>
List-Help: <mailto:anima-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:anima-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:anima@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:anima-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:anima-leave@ietf.org>

Esko Dijk <esko.dijk=40iotconsultancy.nl@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
    > An alternative to the string "::" would be a short hostname that's guaranteed
    > to be not resolved using the DNS, or using some local name configuration, or
    > other known methods.

uhm, okay.

    > An even shorter version would be just "alt" for the hostname. Or
    > "jp.brski.alt" if potential name clashes are a worry.

RFC9031 uses 6tisch.arpa on the forward direction in Uri-Host.
I don't think foo.alt is going to fly...

Since then I wonder why we didn't just leave Uri-Host option out.
I think it's because we wanted to get out of .well-known, so Uri-Path could
be "j", ignoring RFC8820.

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide

v2.39.1 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status