Re: draft-newton-link-rr (was Re: Last Call: <draft-faltstrom-uri-10.txt> (The Uniform Resource) Identifier (URI) DNS Resource Record) to Proposed Standard

Patrik Fältström <paf@frobbit.se> Mon, 02 March 2015 21:47 UTC

Return-Path: <paf@frobbit.se>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A33B91A89B3 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Mar 2015 13:47:43 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.96
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.96 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
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 QUBp8WwMTCdb for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Mar 2015 13:47:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.frobbit.se (mail.frobbit.se [85.30.129.185]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7884D1A89A5 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 2 Mar 2015 13:47:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.118] (h67n24-far-a13.ias.bredband.telia.com [217.208.238.67]) by mail.frobbit.se (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 496932024C; Mon, 2 Mar 2015 22:47:39 +0100 (CET)
Subject: Re: draft-newton-link-rr (was Re: Last Call: <draft-faltstrom-uri-10.txt> (The Uniform Resource) Identifier (URI) DNS Resource Record) to Proposed Standard
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2070.6\))
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_A8AF0A48-7C61-42AD-B744-A356A2F947C5"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1
X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail 2.5b5
From: =?utf-8?Q?Patrik_F=C3=A4ltstr=C3=B6m?= <paf@frobbit.se>
In-Reply-To: <CAAQiQRdo0zs4Z32Xmn0VpPkz=2L0mtojmxUXB3-G58vVYTEp=w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2015 22:47:38 +0100
Message-Id: <300ABB76-623D-4F48-A739-8B858693DF32@frobbit.se>
References: <20150127223859.28024.43756.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <4257D8A3-0EFE-40E3-B0AD-8E23772B7693@mnot.net> <CAAQiQRdLvcQLskOuo7g_=SfmowCtyyF7OwWb-Y0nsRDeTdgncA@mail.gmail.com> <39D5E26A-E1FE-4C77-9624-5E9396497F65@mnot.net> <83FCB47C-ED48-4B26-B898-F1A47528595E@netnod.se> <20150227203732.GC11145@localhost> <78B5DE44-02B6-47FD-92B6-DB9E6212D7E9@netnod.se> <20150227210036.GD11145@localhost> <CAAQiQRdo0zs4Z32Xmn0VpPkz=2L0mtojmxUXB3-G58vVYTEp=w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Andrew Newton <andy@hxr.us>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2070.6)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/-J4FEv_AKwsbwJTMlnXbBSIGhD4>
Cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, IETF <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 02 Mar 2015 21:47:43 -0000

> On 2 mar 2015, at 17:34, Andrew Newton <andy@hxr.us> wrote:
> 
> On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 4:00 PM, Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com <mailto:nico@cryptonector.com>> wrote:
> > And this is the reason I am nervous over "gopher like features" in
> > DNS. Even though I think it is good...I think it will loose...
> 
> I don't think that's a good enough reason here.  There may be other
> reasons to tread carefully here.
> 
> Agreed. Also, it seems the horse has already left the barn. With application selection using prefixes, etc... that goes on with SRV, S-NAPTR, and U-NAPTR (as well as URI), there is already "negotiation stuff" in the DNS.

I agree with that but I differ between the "service selection" which I think the prefix is, and the "content negotiation" which is happening as part of HTTP. I do not really see in HTTP a negotiation between SMTP, IMAP and WEB, although with websockets we probably will ;-)

   Patrik