Re: [apps-discuss] For consideration as an appsawg document: draft-hoffman-server-has-tls-03.txt

Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com> Thu, 27 January 2011 21:05 UTC

Return-Path: <lear@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E787E3A6A72 for <apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 27 Jan 2011 13:05:32 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.212
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.212 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.387, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Ca01RWraMFhT for <apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 27 Jan 2011 13:05:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ams-iport-1.cisco.com (ams-iport-1.cisco.com [144.254.224.140]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 18BB63A69C3 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Thu, 27 Jan 2011 13:05:30 -0800 (PST)
Authentication-Results: ams-iport-1.cisco.com; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: ArUEAH9tQU2Q/khNgWdsb2JhbACEFKBpFQEBFiIkoGmKXpBjgSODOHQEjCc
Received: from ams-core-4.cisco.com ([144.254.72.77]) by ams-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 27 Jan 2011 21:08:34 +0000
Received: from dhcp-10-55-95-186.cisco.com (dhcp-10-55-95-186.cisco.com [10.55.95.186]) by ams-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p0RL8YXE010219; Thu, 27 Jan 2011 21:08:34 GMT
Message-ID: <4D41DECD.6090800@cisco.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2011 22:08:29 +0100
From: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101207 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.7
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
References: <4D33AC5F.3010609@vpnc.org> <AANLkTim5LpgqM5F2Zb_s+O4Jv8vrF+dcrnr3DpCMAJ6C@mail.gmail.com> <4D3EEE94.2090801@cisco.com> <4D41C56C.8060900@vpnc.org>
In-Reply-To: <4D41C56C.8060900@vpnc.org>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: apps-discuss@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] For consideration as an appsawg document: draft-hoffman-server-has-tls-03.txt
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2011 21:05:33 -0000

Paul,

Just on this point:

>> 6.  Along these lines we should view this as an evolution of SRV.
>
> Errr, just to be clear: are you proposing that this be an update to
> RFC 2782? If so, please give a straw-man for how that would work. I
> don't see how SRV records are extensible.
>

Were there a way to capture SRV functionality while offering the HASTLS
capability, then we could deprecate SRV.  I would only recommend doing
so, however, for a more generalized approach.  I think you're really
quite close to this already, especially given your answer to Patrik
(which I liked).

Eliot