[dnsext] URI RRTYPE review - New Comments period end Feb 17th

[Frederico A C Neves <[e-mail]>]

Dear Colleagues,

Bellow is a resubmission of a completed template requesting a new
RRTYPE assignment under the procedures of RFC5395.

This message starts a 3 weeks period for an expert-review of the DNS
RRTYPE parameter allocation for URI specified in
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-faltstrom-uri-05

If you have any new comments regarding this request that have not yet
being made at the thread starting with message
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsext/current/msg08956.html ,
please post them here before Feb 17th 18:00 UTC

Best Regards,
Frederico Neves

--begin 5395 template URI--
A.   Submission Date:

     May 23, 2009

B.   Submission Type:

     [X] New RRTYPE
     [ ] Modification to existing RRTYPE

C.   Contact Information for submitter:

     Name: Patrik Faltstrom
     Email Address: [e-mail]
     International telephone number: [phone]
     Other contact handles:
     (Note: This information will be publicly posted.)

D.   Motivation for the new RRTYPE application?

     There is no easy way to get from a domain name to a URI.  Some
     mechanisms exists via use of the NAPTR [RFC3403] resource
     record.  That implies quite complicated rules that are
     simplified via the S-NAPTR [RFC3958] specification.  But, the
     ability to directly look up a URI still exists.  This
     specification uses a prefix based naming mechanism originated in
     the definition of the SRV [RFC2782] resource record, and the
     RDATA is a URI, encoded as one text field.

     See also Section 1 in draft-faltstrom-uri-05.txt.

E.   Description of the proposed RR type.

     The format of the URI resource record is as follows:


     Ownername TTL Class URI Priority Weight Target


     The URI RR has service information encoded in its ownername.  In
     order to encode the service for a specific owner name one uses
     service parameters.  Valid service parameters used are either
     Enumservice Registrations registered by IANA, or prefixes used
     for the SRV resource record.

     The wire format of the RDATA is as follows:


                         1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3
     0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |          Priority             |          Weight               |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    /                                                               /
    /                             Target                            /
    /                                                               /
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+


F.   What existing RRTYPE or RRTYPEs come closest to filling that
     need and why are they unsatisfactory?

     The RRTYPE that come closest is the NAPTR resource record.  It
     is for example used in the DDDS and S-NAPTR algorithms.  The
     main problem with the NAPTR is that selection of what record (or
     records) one is interested in is based on data stored in the
     RDATA portion of the NAPTR resource record.  This, as explained
     in RFC 5507 [RFC5507], is not optimal for DNS lookups.  Further,
     most applications using NAPTR resource records uses regular
     expression based rewrite rules for creation of the URI, and that
     has shown be complicated to implement.

     The second closest RRTYPE is the SRV record that given a
     prefixed based naming just like is suggested for the URI
     resource record, one get back a port number and domain name.
     This can also be used for creation of a URI, but, only URIs
     without path components.

G.   What mnemonic is requested for the new RRTYPE (optional)?

     URI

H.   Does the requested RRTYPE make use of any existing IANA Registry
     or require the creation of a new IANA sub-registry in DNS
     Parameters?

     Yes, partially.

     One of the mechanisms to select a service is to use the
     Enumservice Registry managed by IANA.  Another is to use
     services and protocols used for SRV records.

I.   Does the proposal require/expect any changes in DNS servers/
     resolvers that prevent the new type from being processed as an
     unknown RRTYPE (see [RFC3597])?

     No

J.   Comments:

     None
--end 5395 template URI--