IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: moving forward on draft-lear-httpbis-svcinfo-rr

Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com> Mon, 11 February 2013 15:55 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A5FB21F8A6F for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 Feb 2013 07:55:39 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.075
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.075 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.523, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UVlDtIUpNCup for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 Feb 2013 07:55:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 50B0821F8967 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Mon, 11 Feb 2013 07:55:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1U4viS-0002AL-4m for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Mon, 11 Feb 2013 15:54:48 +0000
Resent-Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2013 15:54:48 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1U4viS-0002AL-4m@frink.w3.org>
Received: from maggie.w3.org ([128.30.52.39]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <hallam@gmail.com>) id 1U4viJ-00028p-K0 for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Mon, 11 Feb 2013 15:54:39 +0000
Received: from mail-we0-f173.google.com ([74.125.82.173]) by maggie.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_ARCFOUR_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <hallam@gmail.com>) id 1U4viE-0005bP-Cm for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Mon, 11 Feb 2013 15:54:39 +0000
Received: by mail-we0-f173.google.com with SMTP id r5so4761252wey.4 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Mon, 11 Feb 2013 07:54:07 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=nYYs3ZDWvhVYsqP5Zbe10dUkr4k+EzJlPOMIyo4cuUM=; b=aM/fCYdqFFwCYlbVz69hRhtStemk2VNcMko84PG5EJa2vZTnmgzzkRG4kmobvGhold 6wqIDYM63MeF5r9dfPOO1gmT3zGP0fnVuH6xbeqBTqUWF1J0gjEt/sOy05/yK/Yyi+0J SnMVY5IPdNnXvy71qqfFM8c3ClfvxxABnyai3a/oHpm2AyfS8J32/o/ZsS2deaiJuExu EhvhnoRlcpPsgv76L3JM8bJQaBHCy0z0g9sJMqIn+aXDL7djDymOXCnjA5W5DXqCjSEb 4Q7oR8KsVzT6ueA5Rcw03KOFzai6HcZIqRBmMbQN/PiA5cjVIB9l1rCwa2T4TDUrSmtt VdVw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.108.3 with SMTP id hg3mr16857581wib.33.1360598045112; Mon, 11 Feb 2013 07:54:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.194.153.104 with HTTP; Mon, 11 Feb 2013 07:54:04 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <51190D4E.8080208@cisco.com>
References: <5110CB17.2000200@cisco.com> <CABaLYCuKuei2jOKpFtcQ8Y+7oPrhfibn3HN1rqGqRkUGt1H5Bg@mail.gmail.com> <020463E4-2F8E-4C04-9154-556D2B10FFB5@mnot.net> <51190D4E.8080208@cisco.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2013 10:54:04 -0500
Message-ID: <CAMm+LwhZOx_q-apb5z9Db_NTEbELYH3gNmR=6xmcJHfNZ4CrnA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com>
To: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
Cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, Mike Belshe <mike@belshe.com>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Patrick McManus <pmcmanus@mozilla.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="e89a8f3ba6e32938ce04d574ebcd"
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=74.125.82.173; envelope-from=hallam@gmail.com; helo=mail-we0-f173.google.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.4
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-2.648, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: maggie.w3.org 1U4viE-0005bP-Cm 3bd815a2e2130232c20c339bcfae7197
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: moving forward on draft-lear-httpbis-svcinfo-rr
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/CAMm+LwhZOx_q-apb5z9Db_NTEbELYH3gNmR=6xmcJHfNZ4CrnA@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/16557
X-Loop: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Resent-Sender: ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org
Precedence: list
List-Id: <ietf-http-wg.w3.org>
List-Help: <http://www.w3.org/Mail/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org?subject=unsubscribe>

We really should not be using TXT here because any record that is specific
to a protocol needs to have a prefix so that a query can be made for just
the records relevant to that protocol. Otherwise the DNS UDP response limit
is quickly exceeded.

I much prefer to go for a text encoded tag value pair approach for
application level attributes because that allows the same syntax to be used
in the HTTP (or whatever) header and the DNS record.

More generally though, I think that if we are going to introduce a new
record it should be a record that allows for more than just HTTP version
agility which is essentially one bit of information. Making a UDP round
trip for a single bit of information seems excessive.

I would rather see any DNS work as being an application layer proposal that
should support all application transports and in particular allow
negotiation between HTTP, HTTPS and COAP transports.


On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 10:25 AM, Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com> wrote:

> [Note I'm on vacation and avoiding the computer]
>
> On 2/11/13 6:17 AM, Mark Nottingham wrote:
> > Eliot - a major portion of the conversation was about whether this would
> be in a new record type vs. in a TXT record. Do you plan to address that in
> your next draft?
> >
>
> I think the conversation was about whether to a use a text formed record
> rather than a binary encoded one.  Using TXT wouldn't be a good idea for
> any number of reasons.
>
> Eliot
>
>


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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email