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

Nico Williams <> Fri, 27 February 2015 21:00 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id DCE221A0222 for <>; Fri, 27 Feb 2015 13:00:39 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.366
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.366 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] autolearn=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id frREdPCqNF-M for <>; Fri, 27 Feb 2015 13:00:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 18F8C1A01E7 for <>; Fri, 27 Feb 2015 13:00:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC4C120078719; Fri, 27 Feb 2015 13:00:38 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed;; h=date :from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; s=; bh=vECzigkoyJuPyc3YFz7GG7KEnls=; b=BB690q5wgQU O/V+WwMhScQfcfOH0vkF9jEKCskKWvniSWLdejCzeAkaAPBD1wj/F5ykCrkNBnlK 1+dhtzTVniJfqZQOt/jiOWOVPxLjF6ckYLaqIJr1+YFq59bNKU7W/e9+ULrFps/y SuO58eemK8Q8PoMpLC1Dzxi3TRiUguys=
Received: from localhost ( []) (Authenticated sender: by (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 970102007870D; Fri, 27 Feb 2015 13:00:38 -0800 (PST)
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2015 15:00:38 -0600
From: Nico Williams <>
To: Patrik =?iso-8859-1?B?RuRsdHN0cvZt?= <>
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
Message-ID: <20150227210036.GD11145@localhost>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <20150227203732.GC11145@localhost> <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <>
Cc: Mark Nottingham <>, IETF <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2015 21:00:40 -0000

On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 09:45:10PM +0100, Patrik Fältström wrote:
> > On 27 feb 2015, at 21:37, Nico Williams <> wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 08:07:25AM +0100, Patrik Fältström wrote:
> >> My feedback to Andrew when he presented this to me was that:
> >> 
> >> - In general I am nervous of moving HTTP header attributes into the
> >>  DNS, as it might create inconsistencies when for example the data in
> >>  DNS do not match what is in the HTTP header, and we already have a
> >>  content-negotiation mechanism in HTTP
> > 
> > If anything, it may not provide the optimization that's desired.  (Any
> > numbers?)
> Ok, to go back in history, this is why I originally did believe more
> in Gopher than Web... :-)

But I wanted current numbers, as in performance numbers :)

> I though a proper negotiation would be to know already in the source
> of a referral what kind of data the target was. This was how Gopher
> worked, but Web was different. The link was (is) neutral and the
> negotiation happens at the target.

Very large references would have been unwieldy in HTML back then.

Content-addressed storage is still unwieldy for cross-domain
referencing, and always will be.

> That story, early 1990's, gave me the lesson that the "correct"
> solutions do not always win. The "best" solution wins.

That's hardly the only case, and I'm not sure that your approach would
have been more correct.  The more metadata [about a target resource] you
put into the referring entity's content, the better the chances of the
reference going stale.  Content-addressing is an extreme example of
this, though for your approach I guess one would have used some fuzzy
matching (which is not applicable to content-addressing).

> 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.