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 <nico@cryptonector.com> Fri, 27 February 2015 21:00 UTC

Return-Path: <nico@cryptonector.com>
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 DCE221A0222 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 Feb 2015 13:00:39 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.366
X-Spam-Level:
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 mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id frREdPCqNF-M for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 Feb 2015 13:00:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from homiemail-a111.g.dreamhost.com (sub4.mail.dreamhost.com [69.163.253.135]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 18F8C1A01E7 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 27 Feb 2015 13:00:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from homiemail-a111.g.dreamhost.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by homiemail-a111.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC4C120078719; Fri, 27 Feb 2015 13:00:38 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=cryptonector.com; h=date :from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; s= cryptonector.com; bh=vECzigkoyJuPyc3YFz7GG7KEnls=; b=BB690q5wgQU O/V+WwMhScQfcfOH0vkF9jEKCskKWvniSWLdejCzeAkaAPBD1wj/F5ykCrkNBnlK 1+dhtzTVniJfqZQOt/jiOWOVPxLjF6ckYLaqIJr1+YFq59bNKU7W/e9+ULrFps/y SuO58eemK8Q8PoMpLC1Dzxi3TRiUguys=
Received: from localhost (108-207-244-174.lightspeed.austtx.sbcglobal.net [108.207.244.174]) (Authenticated sender: nico@cryptonector.com) by homiemail-a111.g.dreamhost.com (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 <nico@cryptonector.com>
To: Patrik =?iso-8859-1?B?RuRsdHN0cvZt?= <paf@netnod.se>
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: <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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <78B5DE44-02B6-47FD-92B6-DB9E6212D7E9@netnod.se>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/Efayi7-aWkSQSQYfeGRRNRZLd_E>
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: 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 <nico@cryptonector.com> 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.

Nico
--