Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] HTTPSSVC/SVCB bikeshed: poll for what to name them

Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@icann.org> Wed, 20 November 2019 09:58 UTC

Return-Path: <paul.hoffman@icann.org>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB221120890 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Nov 2019 01:58:40 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 5CuKzIBhlvMf for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Nov 2019 01:58:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ppa3.lax.icann.org (ppa3.lax.icann.org [192.0.33.78]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 324D812081F for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Nov 2019 01:58:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from PFE112-CA-2.pexch112.icann.org (out.west.pexch112.icann.org [64.78.40.10]) by ppa3.lax.icann.org (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with ESMTPS id xAK9wbP8005003 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 20 Nov 2019 09:58:37 GMT
Received: from PMBX112-W1-CA-1.pexch112.icann.org (64.78.40.21) by PMBX112-W1-CA-2.pexch112.icann.org (64.78.40.23) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1497.2; Wed, 20 Nov 2019 01:58:35 -0800
Received: from PMBX112-W1-CA-1.pexch112.icann.org ([64.78.40.21]) by PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG ([64.78.40.21]) with mapi id 15.00.1497.000; Wed, 20 Nov 2019 01:58:35 -0800
From: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@icann.org>
To: Shane Kerr <shane@time-travellers.org>
CC: "dnsop@ietf.org" <dnsop@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Ext] [DNSOP] HTTPSSVC/SVCB bikeshed: poll for what to name them
Thread-Index: AQHVn4kS8mddSz5AmEekDRD77xFcqA==
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2019 09:58:34 +0000
Message-ID: <0A8B65C6-C5C8-4BE5-B3BA-15039E73A168@icann.org>
References: <CAKC-DJiuE0Gmt5kMz8UJbZ625hdeMZLih3CCg1FQKx92D79oLw@mail.gmail.com> <20191120090406.GT34850@straasha.imrryr.org> <b1498a4c-3682-2d62-7811-648568992e76@time-travellers.org>
In-Reply-To: <b1498a4c-3682-2d62-7811-648568992e76@time-travellers.org>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [192.0.32.234]
x-source-routing-agent: Processed
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_EBCF48D9-E7AB-4DC8-8BBB-C44DF43BAC2E"; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha-256
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:, , definitions=2019-11-20_02:, , signatures=0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/E0VhwimGjz88OA7oB4yc_aYaad4>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] HTTPSSVC/SVCB bikeshed: poll for what to name them
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <dnsop.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dnsop/>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsop@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2019 09:58:41 -0000

On Nov 20, 2019, at 5:18 PM, Shane Kerr <shane@time-travellers.org> wrote:
> 
> Viktor,
> 
> On 20/11/2019 10.04, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
>> My proposal:
>> 1. SVCB  ->  SRVLOC
>>    Service location, less cryptic than SVCB, and manifestly a
>>    generalization of SRV.
>> 2. HTTPSSVC  ->  HTTPLOC
>>    HTTP location, manifestly a variant of the generic service location,
>>    with HTTP in the name.
>> Definitely agree on the need for a single lexeme, these names end up as
>> enum names in various programming languages.
> 
> Unfortunately these are similar to the fun but rarely-used LOC record:
> 
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1876
> 
> And also similar to the even less-frequently used NIMLOC record (which seems to be from a routing architecture that hasn't been worked on in 20 years):
> 
> http://ana-3.lcs.mit.edu/~jnc/nimrod/dns.txt
> 
> Not necessarily a complete veto, but definitely a mark against SRVLOC/HTTPLOC, I think.

Even though this is bikeshedding, I fully disagree with the concern that Shane brings up here. RRtypes are exact match, and we haven't seen any "sounds like" problems in the past.

I like "fooLOC" as a naming scheme here.

--Paul Hoffman