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

Dirk-Willem van Gulik <dirkx@webweaving.org> Mon, 23 February 2015 16:00 UTC

Return-Path: <dirkx@webweaving.org>
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 9584A1A1B65 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 Feb 2015 08:00:35 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.789
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.789 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, GB_SUMOF=1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=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 m8Z7hE36jL4k for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 Feb 2015 08:00:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from weser.webweaving.org (weser.webweaving.org [148.251.234.232]) (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 BDC451A00EF for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 23 Feb 2015 08:00:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from beeb.leiden.webweaving.org (5ED23D33.cm-7-3a.dynamic.ziggo.nl [94.210.61.51]) (authenticated bits=0) by weser.webweaving.org (8.14.9/8.14.9) with ESMTP id t1NG0UtX025142 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 23 Feb 2015 17:00:32 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from dirkx@webweaving.org)
X-Authentication-Warning: weser.webweaving.org: Host 5ED23D33.cm-7-3a.dynamic.ziggo.nl [94.210.61.51] claimed to be beeb.leiden.webweaving.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2081\))
Subject: Re: (short version) Re: Last Call: <draft-faltstrom-uri-10.txt> (The Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) DNS Resource Record) to Proposed Standard
From: Dirk-Willem van Gulik <dirkx@webweaving.org>
In-Reply-To: <A74A30F4D1214630918FD4CA@JcK-HP8200.jck.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2015 17:00:29 +0100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <999AC2C2-5359-4062-A99A-F74B5FE48336@webweaving.org>
References: <20150127223859.28024.43756.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <4257D8A3-0EFE-40E3-B0AD-8E23772B7693@mnot.net> <6F9BB11D-C224-4D7B-A06C-41EACBAAB4B2@netnod.se> <54C9DA42.5040901@cisco.com> <9EB44D8A-278B-42FC-A542-1C182AD43128@netnod.se> <A74A30F4D1214630918FD4CA@JcK-HP8200.jck.com>
To: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2081)
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.4.3 (weser.webweaving.org [148.251.234.232]); Mon, 23 Feb 2015 17:00:32 +0100 (CET)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/5ihP2Bwngu19JvM4-wsI1Ojx7K4>
Cc: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
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, 23 Feb 2015 16:00:35 -0000

John,

On 23 Feb 2015, at 16:05, John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> wrote:

> experience with confusion about MX and SRV priorities to be
> cautious about adding another ranking field, especially one
> whose values are interpreted as "largest integer has the highest
> preference" while the more traditional priority is interpreted
> as "smallest integer is highest preference".   Because IANA

While the text is clear to ‘me’ - I have to agree I’ve more than once seen this go wrong during initial implementations (all easily fixed by a few emails with the authors though).

BUT given that the confusion arises from text[1] which is very similar to the original in SRV rfc2782[2] - and given that we have (and will have) that issue for all use of SRV I am not sure if this should go into this draft.

And am wondering why it would not be better to have a separate explanation RFC which deals with this; and the Order/Preference of NAPTR (3). 

Dw.



1: From version 10 of the  draft:

4.2.  Priority


   The priority of the target URI in this RR.  Its range is 0-65535.  A
   client MUST attempt to contact the URI with the lowest-numbered
   priority it can reach; URIs with the same priority SHOULD be tried in
   the order defined by the weight field.


4.3.  Weight


   A server selection mechanism.  The weight field specifies a relative
   weight for entries with the same priority.  Larger weights SHOULD be
   given a proportionately higher probability of being selected.  The
   range of this number is 0-65535.




2: RFC2782:

 Priority
        The priority of this target host.  A client MUST attempt to
        contact the target host with the lowest-numbered priority it can
        reach; target hosts with the same priority SHOULD be tried in an
        order defined by the weight field.  The range is 0-65535.  This
        is a 16 bit unsigned integer in network byte order.

   Weight
        A server selection mechanism.  The weight field specifies a
        relative weight for entries with the same priority. Larger
        weights SHOULD be given a proportionately higher probability of
        being selected. The range of this number is 0-65535.  This is a
        16 bit unsigned integer in network byte order.  Domain
        administrators SHOULD use Weight 0 when there isn't any server
        selection to do, to make the RR easier to read for humans (less
        noisy).  In the presence of records containing weights greater
        than 0, records with weight 0 should have a very small chance of
        being selected.

        In the absence of a protocol whose specification calls for the
        use of other weighting information, a client arranges the SRV
        RRs of the same Priority in the order in which target hosts,
        specified by the SRV RRs, will be contacted. The following
        algorithm SHOULD be used to order the SRV RRs of the same
        priority:

        To select a target to be contacted next, arrange all SRV RRs
        (that have not been ordered yet) in any order, except that all
        those with weight 0 are placed at the beginning of the list.

        Compute the sum of the weights of those RRs, and with each RR
        associate the running sum in the selected order. Then choose a
        uniform random number between 0 and the sum computed
        (inclusive), and select the RR whose running sum value is the
        first in the selected order which is greater than or equal to
        the random number selected. The target host specified in the
        selected SRV RR is the next one to be contacted by the client.
        Remove this SRV RR from the set of the unordered SRV RRs and
        apply the described algorithm to the unordered SRV RRs to select
        the next target host.  Continue the ordering process until there
        are no unordered SRV RRs.  This process is repeated for each
        Priority.



3: RFC2915 —> rfc3404.

Order
      A 16-bit unsigned integer specifying the order in which the NAPTR
      records MUST be processed to ensure the correct ordering of
      rules.  Low numbers are processed before high numbers, and once a
      NAPTR is found whose rule "matches" the target, the client MUST
      NOT consider any NAPTRs with a higher value for order (except as
      noted below for the Flags field).

   Preference
      A 16-bit unsigned integer that specifies the order in which NAPTR
      records with equal "order" values SHOULD be processed, low
      numbers being processed before high numbers.  This is similar to
      the preference field in an MX record, and is used so domain
      administrators can direct clients towards more capable hosts or
      lighter weight protocols.  A client MAY look at records with
      higher preference values if it has a good reason to do so such as
      not understanding the preferred protocol or service.

      The important difference between Order and Preference is that
      once a match is found the client MUST NOT consider records with a
      different Order but they MAY process records with the same Order
      but different Preferences.  I.e., Preference is used to give weight
      to rules that are considered the same from an authority
      standpoint but not from a simple load balancing standpoint.