Re: [dnsext] URI RRTYPE review - Comments period end Aug 15th

Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com> Mon, 26 July 2010 00:47 UTC

Return-Path: <owner-namedroppers@ops.ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-dnsext-archive@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-dnsext-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DBB923A6852; Sun, 25 Jul 2010 17:47:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.992
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.992 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.497, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RDNS_NONE=0.1]
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 ye4REiNPjCXW; Sun, 25 Jul 2010 17:47:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BDED83A6846; Sun, 25 Jul 2010 17:47:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.72 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <owner-namedroppers@ops.ietf.org>) id 1OdBnO-000HqW-Nk for namedroppers-data0@psg.com; Mon, 26 Jul 2010 00:43:54 +0000
Received: from [209.85.214.180] (helo=mail-iw0-f180.google.com) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.72 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <hallam@gmail.com>) id 1OdBnL-000Hp8-8b for namedroppers@ops.ietf.org; Mon, 26 Jul 2010 00:43:51 +0000
Received: by iwn8 with SMTP id 8so3351831iwn.11 for <namedroppers@ops.ietf.org>; Sun, 25 Jul 2010 17:43:50 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:received:in-reply-to :references:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=iKH/4/4Mjg3UG68HV7KO1Wh1EDR2FoO/LFH9CgbZ9x0=; b=pNwua6Cm8iNoMs3Ta6u1LkFdufvfIXyybFw8+le/WjrHFDBklI4ymZLoFYUsYrzWol 93OXqLdFAgX4MEGJZh5k429BqtZSHZkS8LSV/e6cpnznvRVgr1OElGGLmKyjPgLo4Ezd nKc1FXxqrjpNmBHnFO1DReHgkxVuBbw4v/Mxg=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=vjiT+aURY/nROetzn0rUprJv9TGYl08z8hULDSsgiI1gSOHEyV5KRDVR0R5frcVHro rhuOWzp9zE0Ho2d4V3GSQ8ez9Ou3PVmrjUwayWJ3XxLTpt79+23qY8jeuwAsnY8XXDau 74GZIhSozrqCRMf3VCOero1JSmZfxqrI1+iKA=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.231.14.200 with SMTP id h8mr6842020iba.188.1280105030007; Sun, 25 Jul 2010 17:43:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.231.10.76 with HTTP; Sun, 25 Jul 2010 17:43:49 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <4C4CC6BB.7040003@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
References: <20100725184119.GA42253@registro.br> <4C4C8FE8.8090305@knipp.de> <4C4CC6BB.7040003@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
Date: Sun, 25 Jul 2010 20:43:49 -0400
Message-ID: <AANLkTinOAikAPH5JbZ1RJsEX2p536LOh+yOutWC_Oq2M@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [dnsext] URI RRTYPE review - Comments period end Aug 15th
From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com>
To: Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
Cc: Klaus Malorny <Klaus.Malorny@knipp.de>, namedroppers@ops.ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Sender: owner-namedroppers@ops.ietf.org
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <namedroppers.ops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: To unsubscribe send a message to namedroppers-request@ops.ietf.org with
List-Unsubscribe: the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
List-Archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/>

Use the same RR for both.

As far as the infrastructure is concerned there is absolutely no
difference. DNS does not need to know the semantics of the bits being
shipped.

IRIs are going to have to fit into slots where URLs are used. In most
cases the application will not know which is being used.

The justification for IRIs is that they are friendlier for human use.
This is another technology meant to make things easier for human use.
There is really no reason that the target should be another human
friendly format. But there is no particular harm either. Provided that
the target is something that the app can just use as a blind chunk of
bits.


2010/7/25 Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>:
> Klaus Malorny wrote:
>
>> dumb question: I don't consider myself an expert in that respect, but
>> wouldn't it make more sense nowadays to use UTF-8 encoded IRIs (RFC
>> 3987) instead of URIs? Or is there a need to keep everything ASCII-safe?
>
> UTF-8 is causing a lot of problems, some of which was predicted
> but some are new, with CJK unification and will never be stable.
>
> Patrik;
>
>> But I take on the task to check with the IRI people really fast,
>
> They are the wrong people to ask, because only the positive
> answers are expected.
>
>                                                Masataka Ohta
>
>



-- 
Website: http://hallambaker.com/