Re: [apps-discuss] draft-ietf-weirds-bootstrap-00 and our lawn -- feedback?
Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> Wed, 12 February 2014 04:49 UTC
Return-Path: <mnot@mnot.net>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E5A51A0846 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 Feb 2014 20:49:11 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.902
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nbQln8L6Xsm9 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 Feb 2014 20:49:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mxout-07.mxes.net (mxout-07.mxes.net [216.86.168.182]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 24F9C1A0837 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Tue, 11 Feb 2014 20:49:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.55] (unknown [118.209.47.254]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id CF54B22E1F3; Tue, 11 Feb 2014 23:49:05 -0500 (EST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.1 \(1827\))
From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
In-Reply-To: <0D6BE438-4886-44EC-963C-0F7EC20284A0@viagenie.ca>
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2014 15:49:01 +1100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <FE638099-6136-4264-845E-DA4AF6CDB1F6@mnot.net>
References: <40E62D1E-983E-465A-A169-2104BCFA587B@mnot.net> <0D6BE438-4886-44EC-963C-0F7EC20284A0@viagenie.ca>
To: Marc Blanchet <marc.blanchet@viagenie.ca>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1827)
Cc: IETF Apps Discuss <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] draft-ietf-weirds-bootstrap-00 and our lawn -- feedback?
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/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: Wed, 12 Feb 2014 04:49:11 -0000
On 12 Feb 2014, at 1:09 am, Marc Blanchet <marc.blanchet@viagenie.ca> wrote: > yes. that is another way. it provides an additional level of indirection to remove the url component out from the spec. but it actually overload the registry with more data than typically necessary, and pretty repetitive. i.e. most likely every registry will have rel: domainlookup href-template: http://exampleregistry1.com/lookup/{domain}, rel: domainlookup href-template: http://exampleregistry2.com/lookup/{domain}, rel: domainlookup href-template: http://exampleregistry3.com/lookup/{domain}. Given the number of TLDs and that there are about 10 objects, we are multiplying the entries by 10, becomes pretty large registry operationally to parse. Perhaps, but it may be possible to mitigate that, depending on the particulars of how it's going to be used and deployed. E.g., have IANA run a lookup service themselves; e.g., http://iana.org/rdap/domain/foo.com Or, define a document format that IANA points to in the registry, and *it* points to the various endpoints. Also, if the data is that voluminous, it suggests that you may have a problem anyway; adding such repetitive information shouldn't affect the size of the response after gzip (which you'd want to use in any case) that much. >> I'm very curious to hear what other APPS folks think about this -- especially those of a Web bent. We're trying to line up some conversations about this in London, and I'd like to inform them with the WG's perspective, rather than just my own. > > btw, "them/they", "we": we are the same IETF people. Why are we talking the "them" and "we" perspective? Strangely, we *do* organise ourselves into groups and areas here. Or are you proposing something more radical? -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
- Re: [apps-discuss] unpersuasive advice, was draft… John Levine
- [apps-discuss] draft-ietf-weirds-bootstrap-00 and… Mark Nottingham
- Re: [apps-discuss] draft-ietf-weirds-bootstrap-00… Tim Bray
- Re: [apps-discuss] draft-ietf-weirds-bootstrap-00… Erik Wilde
- Re: [apps-discuss] draft-ietf-weirds-bootstrap-00… Marc Blanchet
- Re: [apps-discuss] draft-ietf-weirds-bootstrap-00… Marc Blanchet
- Re: [apps-discuss] draft-ietf-weirds-bootstrap-00… Andrew Newton
- Re: [apps-discuss] draft-ietf-weirds-bootstrap-00… John Levine
- Re: [apps-discuss] draft-ietf-weirds-bootstrap-00… Mark Nottingham
- Re: [apps-discuss] draft-ietf-weirds-bootstrap-00… Mark Nottingham
- Re: [apps-discuss] draft-ietf-weirds-bootstrap-00… Marc Blanchet
- Re: [apps-discuss] draft-ietf-weirds-bootstrap-00… Mark Nottingham
- Re: [apps-discuss] draft-ietf-weirds-bootstrap-00… Mark Nottingham
- Re: [apps-discuss] draft-ietf-weirds-bootstrap-00… Tim Bray
- Re: [apps-discuss] draft-ietf-weirds-bootstrap-00… Martin J. Dürst
- Re: [apps-discuss] draft-ietf-weirds-bootstrap-00… John R Levine
- Re: [apps-discuss] draft-ietf-weirds-bootstrap-00… John R Levine
- Re: [apps-discuss] draft-ietf-weirds-bootstrap-00… Tim Bray
- Re: [apps-discuss] draft-ietf-weirds-bootstrap-00… Arnt Gulbrandsen
- Re: [apps-discuss] draft-ietf-weirds-bootstrap-00… Andrew Newton
- Re: [apps-discuss] draft-ietf-weirds-bootstrap-00… Graham Klyne
- Re: [apps-discuss] draft-ietf-weirds-bootstrap-00… John R Levine
- Re: [apps-discuss] draft-ietf-weirds-bootstrap-00… Simon Perreault
- Re: [apps-discuss] draft-ietf-weirds-bootstrap-00… Nico Williams
- Re: [apps-discuss] draft-ietf-weirds-bootstrap-00… Nico Williams
- Re: [apps-discuss] draft-ietf-weirds-bootstrap-00… Arnt Gulbrandsen
- Re: [apps-discuss] draft-ietf-weirds-bootstrap-00… Nico Williams
- Re: [apps-discuss] draft-ietf-weirds-bootstrap-00… Andrew Newton
- Re: [apps-discuss] draft-ietf-weirds-bootstrap-00… Marc Blanchet
- Re: [apps-discuss] draft-ietf-weirds-bootstrap-00… Darrel Miller
- Re: [apps-discuss] draft-ietf-weirds-bootstrap-00… Nico Williams
- Re: [apps-discuss] draft-ietf-weirds-bootstrap-00… Darrel Miller
- Re: [apps-discuss] draft-ietf-weirds-bootstrap-00… John Levine
- Re: [apps-discuss] draft-ietf-weirds-bootstrap-00… Tim Bray
- Re: [apps-discuss] draft-ietf-weirds-bootstrap-00… Andrew Newton
- Re: [apps-discuss] draft-ietf-weirds-bootstrap-00… Darrel Miller
- Re: [apps-discuss] draft-ietf-weirds-bootstrap-00… Darrel Miller
- Re: [apps-discuss] draft-ietf-weirds-bootstrap-00… Andrew Newton
- Re: [apps-discuss] draft-ietf-weirds-bootstrap-00… John R Levine
- Re: [apps-discuss] draft-ietf-weirds-bootstrap-00… Nico Williams
- Re: [apps-discuss] unpersuasive advice, was draft… Mark Nottingham
- Re: [apps-discuss] draft-ietf-weirds-bootstrap-00… Graham Klyne
- [apps-discuss] Pete and Barry: now it is up to yo… Paul Hoffman
- Re: [apps-discuss] Pete and Barry: now it is up t… Andrew Newton
- Re: [apps-discuss] Pete and Barry: now it is up t… Tim Bray
- Re: [apps-discuss] Pete and Barry: now it is up t… Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: [apps-discuss] Pete and Barry: now it is up t… Pete Resnick
- Re: [apps-discuss] Pete and Barry: now it is up t… Paul Hoffman