Re: [DNSOP] [apps-discuss] Draft of interest in DNSOP: draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf

["Patrik Fältström " <[e-mail]>]

On 4 Aug 2016, at 18:55, Dave Crocker wrote:

>>> For URI records RFC 7553 says they're either named the same as SRV
>>> records, or they use enumservice names from the Enumservice
>>
>> Declaring a namespace as the union of two, independently-maintained
>> registries is a very efficient way to encourage -- actually in
>> theoretical terms, it guarantees -- collisions.
>>
>
> I see this as a fundamental problem with the URI spec, for the reason cited.  I also think the current spec should be careful not to promote that problem.
>
> Suggestions?

Add text that say that to resolve conflicts (what prefixes to use for URI or SRV for "the web"?), it is encouraged to write explicit documents that say what is to be used.

I just submitted draft-faltstrom-httpbis-dns-00.txt is an example of what I am thinking of, for URI and "the web", which explicitly say what to enter into the registry that is defined by this document. My envision is to add more text on the recommended way to use DNS in the case of "the web".

TL;DR: draft-faltstrom-httpbis-dns-00.txt recommends _web._http for "the web". Regardless of the registration of both ENUM services HTTP and HTTPS, regardless of the various "names" used for port number 80 (etc) and regardless of whether TCP or UDP (and other things being part of the HTTP evolution...).

It is "just" used for rewrite of the URI before the HTTP protocol takes over.

   Patrik