Re: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Checklist
John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> Fri, 11 July 2008 14:16 UTC
Return-Path: <ietf-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietf-archive@megatron.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-ietf-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 00D063A6B61; Fri, 11 Jul 2008 07:16:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B41E3A6B61; Fri, 11 Jul 2008 07:16:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.546
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.546 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.053, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MUU9rmJTWUYo; Fri, 11 Jul 2008 07:16:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bs.jck.com (ns.jck.com [209.187.148.211]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 53D0C3A6B3D; Fri, 11 Jul 2008 07:15:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=p3.JCK.COM) by bs.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1KHJPZ-000LHu-DJ; Fri, 11 Jul 2008 10:15:49 -0400
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 10:15:48 -0400
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
To: Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com>, Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Checklist
Message-ID: <A21314578D199229A87950E6@p3.JCK.COM>
In-Reply-To: <487764A9.9050309@network-heretics.com>
References: <200807101550.IAA16153@gra.isi.edu> <4877628D.9020200@cisco.com> <487764A9.9050309@network-heretics.com>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Disposition: inline
Cc: Bob Braden <braden@ISI.EDU>, ietf@ietf.org, iesg@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
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>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
--On Friday, 11 July, 2008 09:48 -0400 Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com> wrote: > > > Eliot Lear wrote: >> Bob, >>> This contradicts Section 2.1 of RFDC 1123, which says an >>> application SHOULD support literal addresses (and of course >>> DNS support is a MUST) -- Section 6.1.1.) >>> >> >> Within the application space, which is what we were talking >> about with RFC 1123, I'd have to say that the times have >> changed. Back in 1989 DNS was still relatively unproven, >> failures were common, and there was a need to be able to get >> around DNS. > > In my experience, DNS failures are still common. Most of > those failures are probably due to misconfiguration of some > sort or another (e.g. failure to decrease TTLs in advance of > an address change, particularly when that address is in an NS > record). But to the application, it still looks like a DNS > failure. This is an important consideration. But it is an important consideration in designing protocols and table formats and for configuring systems. As Eliot points out (and as I tried to point out to Bob earlier) no one is suggesting (at least in this Checklist context) prohibiting a protocol specification from supporting literals -- this is just about choices of examples. Even the question of describing the tradeoffs between the use of domain names versus literals in a particular protocol, while important, has little to do with the examples in most cases. >... >> I'm not saying that DNS is perfect by any stretch, but the >> alternative is worse. >> >> Still, I don't think John is suggesting that we prohibit >> applications from supporting literals. I personally just >> think we shouldn't highlight such examples. > > I think examples involving literals are fine, as long as we > state that they're expected to be used only in exceptional > cases. But that is exactly what the proposed text (in its virtual revised form) would require, e.g. (illustrative, not a proposal for final text), One SHOULD avoid use of literals in examples. In the exception cases, one should note why they were used so that reviewers can understand the reasoning. "The DNS is too unstable or otherwise inappropriate for many of the real-world cases so it was important to illustrate the syntax when a literal is used as the common case" would be, IMO, a perfectly good statement of a reason. Whether or not the community would accept that as a reason would, I assume depend on the case-by-case specifics of the protocol or context involved. That is, IMO, as it should be. john _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
- Re: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Chec… Frank Ellermann
- Re: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Chec… Pete Resnick
- Call for review of proposed update to ID-Checklist IETF Chair
- Re: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Chec… Dave Crocker
- Re: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Chec… Pete Resnick
- Re: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Chec… Dave Crocker
- RE: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Chec… Bert Wijnen - IETF
- Re: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Chec… John C Klensin
- RE: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Chec… Bert Wijnen - IETF
- RE: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Chec… John C Klensin
- Re: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Chec… Theodore Tso
- Re: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Chec… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Chec… Frank Ellermann
- Re: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Chec… Thomas Narten
- Re: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Chec… Spencer Dawkins
- Re: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Chec… Bill McQuillan
- Re: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Chec… Paul Hoffman
- Re: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Chec… Spencer Dawkins
- More example TLDs in 2606bis? (was: Call for revi… Frank Ellermann
- Re: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Chec… Keith Moore
- Re: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Chec… John C Klensin
- Re: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Chec… Ted Hardie
- Re: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Chec… Keith Moore
- Re: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Chec… John C Klensin
- Re: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Chec… Frank Ellermann
- Re: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Chec… Bob Braden
- Re: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Chec… John C Klensin
- Re: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Chec… Eliot Lear
- Re: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Chec… Keith Moore
- Re: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Chec… John C Klensin
- Re: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Chec… Bert Wijnen (IETF)
- Re: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Chec… John C Klensin
- Re: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Chec… Bert Wijnen (IETF)
- Re: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Chec… Bert Wijnen (IETF)
- Re: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Chec… Dave Crocker
- Re: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Chec… John C Klensin
- Re: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Chec… Bert Wijnen (IETF)
- Re: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Chec… Bert Wijnen (IETF)
- Re: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Chec… Frank Ellermann
- Re: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Chec… Paul Hoffman
- Re: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Chec… Dave Crocker
- Re: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Chec… Julian Reschke
- Re: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Chec… Dave Crocker
- Re: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Chec… John C Klensin
- Re: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Chec… Henrik Levkowetz
- Re: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Chec… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Chec… John C Klensin
- Re: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Chec… John C Klensin
- Re: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Chec… John C Klensin
- Re: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Chec… Julian Reschke
- Re: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Chec… Lars Eggert
- Re: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Chec… Henrik Levkowetz
- ID desires and TOOLS stuff [was: Re: Call for rev… Bert Wijnen (IETF)
- Re: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Chec… Bert Wijnen (IETF)
- Re: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Chec… Julian Reschke
- Re: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Chec… Bert Wijnen (IETF)
- Re: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Chec… Dave Crocker
- Re: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Chec… Dave Crocker
- Re: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Chec… Henrik Levkowetz
- Re: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Chec… SM
- Re: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Chec… Bert Wijnen (IETF)
- Mixed case (was: Call for review of proposed upda… Frank Ellermann
- Re: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Chec… Russ Housley
- Re: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Chec… Frank Ellermann
- Re: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Chec… Harald Alvestrand
- Re: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Chec… Bert Wijnen (IETF)
- Re: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Chec… Dave Crocker
- Re: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Chec… Dave Crocker
- Re: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Chec… Spencer Dawkins
- Re: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Chec… Robert Elz