Re: [dnsop] draft-ietf-dnsop-ipv6-dns-issues-07.txt and service names vs SRV records

David Kessens <david.kessens@nokia.com> Tue, 22 June 2004 04:12 UTC

Received: from darkwing.uoregon.edu (root@darkwing.uoregon.edu [128.223.142.13]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA01157 for <dnsop-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Tue, 22 Jun 2004 00:12:04 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from darkwing.uoregon.edu (majordom@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i5M1LYZg017183; Mon, 21 Jun 2004 18:21:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.11/8.12.11/Submit) id i5M1LYPo017178; Mon, 21 Jun 2004 18:21:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mgw-x3.nokia.com (mgw-x3.nokia.com [131.228.20.26]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i5M1LUle016997 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NOT) for <dnsop@lists.uoregon.edu>; Mon, 21 Jun 2004 18:21:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from esdks002.ntc.nokia.com (esdks002.ntc.nokia.com [172.21.138.121]) by mgw-x3.nokia.com (Switch-2.2.8/Switch-2.2.8) with ESMTP id i5M1LT217246; Tue, 22 Jun 2004 04:21:29 +0300 (EET DST)
X-Scanned: Tue, 22 Jun 2004 04:20:46 +0300 Nokia Message Protector V1.3.31 2004060815 - RELEASE
Received: (from root@localhost) by esdks002.ntc.nokia.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i5M1Kkae016862; Tue, 22 Jun 2004 04:20:46 +0300
Received: from mgw-int2.ntc.nokia.com (172.21.143.97) by esdks002.ntc.nokia.com 00mJdqT4; Tue, 22 Jun 2004 04:20:45 EEST
Received: from daebh001.NOE.Nokia.com (daebh001.americas.nokia.com [10.241.35.121]) by mgw-int2.ntc.nokia.com (Switch-2.2.8/Switch-2.2.8) with ESMTP id i5M1KYH26810; Tue, 22 Jun 2004 04:20:35 +0300 (EET DST)
Received: from dadhcp-172019068136.americas.nokia.com ([172.19.68.140]) by daebh001.NOE.Nokia.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6881); Mon, 21 Jun 2004 20:20:34 -0500
Received: from dadhcp-172019068136.americas.nokia.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by dadhcp-172019068136.americas.nokia.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i5M1KXje023961; Mon, 21 Jun 2004 18:20:33 -0700
Received: (from kessens@localhost) by dadhcp-172019068136.americas.nokia.com (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i5M1KUSD023959; Mon, 21 Jun 2004 18:20:30 -0700
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2004 18:20:30 -0700
From: David Kessens <david.kessens@nokia.com>
To: Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>
Cc: dnsop@lists.uoregon.edu, smb@research.att.com
Subject: Re: [dnsop] draft-ietf-dnsop-ipv6-dns-issues-07.txt and service names vs SRV records
Message-ID: <20040622012030.GC23422@nokia.com>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0406111717180.19647-100000@netcore.fi>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0406111717180.19647-100000@netcore.fi>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 22 Jun 2004 01:20:34.0393 (UTC) FILETIME=[1DEE9490:01C457F7]
Sender: owner-dnsop@lists.uoregon.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: David Kessens <david.kessens@nokia.com>

Pekka,

On Fri, Jun 11, 2004 at 05:25:31PM +0300, Pekka Savola wrote:
> 
> During the IESG evaluation of this document, there was one comment 
> (there are probably more to come yet) from Steve Bellovin which I 
> think deserves to be discussed in the WG:
> 
> Steve said:
> ======
> 4.1 advocates service names in the DNS.  Is this our official 
> position, as opposed to SRV records?  I thought we wanted to 
> discourage such things.  If SRV records are meant, this should be 
> clarified.  (This is similar to one of my comments on 
> draft-ietf-v6ops-application-transition, and should be resolved in the 
> same way.)
> ======
> 
> (See at the bottom for what section 4.1 says.)
> 
> How do you feel about this?
> 
> My perception of the DNS *operational* situation is that:
> 
>  - yes, SRV records could be used, to the same outcome as described in 
> section 4.1,
>  - no, SRV records are not being used for these purposes for whatever
> reasons (I don't know of those, but I guess they haven't reached 100%
> penetration etc. so you can't only rely on them)
>  - yes, most people do use service names instead of node names 
> instead, so that's an established operational practice.
> 
> So, my own reaction to this comment is that we should just add a 
> paragraph to describe that the same outcome is possible with SRV 
> records but that might not always be a feasible option, and that the 
> section deals with non-SRV situation.

Yes, we would like to see a bit more discussion on the issues
involved, possibly a reference to why we (normally) don't like people
to use service names, and maybe some text why it is acceptable to
actually do this here (if that is the case) or make it clear that you
document existing practise (and I have used this practise as well :-))
but that SRV records are really better.

David Kessens
---
.
dnsop resources:_____________________________________________________
web user interface: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/dnsop.html
mhonarc archive: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/dnsop/index.html