Re: [apps-discuss] draft-ietf-weirds-bootstrap-00 and our lawn -- feedback?

[Nico Williams <[e-mail]>]

On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 2:53 PM, Andrew Newton <[e-mail]> wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 3:39 PM, Nico Williams <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> Then why bother with well-known URIs?
>
> That's from a previous incarnation of helpful advice. It can probably
> come out now.

Yeah, my advice: rip it out.  It'd be nice to get a note from Mark N.
and Tim B. that yeah, there's no lawn to get off of, but don't wait
for them: that's what WG, IESG, and IETF reviews are for, and neither
of the I-Ds in question is even in WG LC, much less past it, so just
go with it.

>> I do question the scalability of IANA as a resolution service
>> though...  Does the IANA agree to be used this way??  Has the IANA
>> been consulted about this?
>
> The IANA files are meant to be cached. And the IANA folks claim this
> is workable.

I meant scaling into the namespace...  But if you're only putting TLD
records in the IANA registry then yeah, it will scale.

>> Also, don't we have a DNS that's meant to scale?  Why is WEIRDS not
>> using the DNS?
>
> Because not everything maps cleanly into the DNS. There were other
> issues as well, all discussed on the WEIRDS list.

I'd think that WHOIS stuff does!  But OK, I don't care enough to look
into it any further.

Nico
--