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 <> Fri, 27 February 2015 20:45 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 64F441A015F for <>; Fri, 27 Feb 2015 12:45:13 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.26
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.26 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MYfnZYDulxyZ for <>; Fri, 27 Feb 2015 12:45:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a01:3f0:1:3::100]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 42A5A1A00C5 for <>; Fri, 27 Feb 2015 12:45:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] ( []) (Authenticated sender: paf) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 655577C190; Fri, 27 Feb 2015 21:45:11 +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=_2B788E3A-E034-4BCC-88EE-08B2CCD0F4D2"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1
X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail 2.5b5
From: =?utf-8?Q?Patrik_F=C3=A4ltstr=C3=B6m?= <>
In-Reply-To: <20150227203732.GC11145@localhost>
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2015 21:45:10 +0100
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <20150227203732.GC11145@localhost>
To: Nico Williams <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2070.6)
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 02 Mar 2015 07:12:22 -0800
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 20:45:13 -0000

> 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... :-)

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.

I did tell this to Tim, just like my view that HTML would have more TeX features like the ability to have "boxes" like various fills. He ignored me -- and I am happy for that!!!!

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


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...