Re: (long/architectural version) Last Call: <draft-faltstrom-uri-10.txt> (The Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) DNS Resource Record) to Proposed Standard
Andrew Newton <andy@hxr.us> Thu, 26 February 2015 15:59 UTC
Return-Path: <andy@hxr.us>
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 459551A8755 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 Feb 2015 07:59:12 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.977
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham
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 xKXSJTCleISP for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 Feb 2015 07:59:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ie0-f172.google.com (mail-ie0-f172.google.com [209.85.223.172]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4F0781A1B7B for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 26 Feb 2015 07:59:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: by iecar1 with SMTP id ar1so17038743iec.0 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 26 Feb 2015 07:59:09 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=BWjpL19Ilr20ZEhbrDurgMbytmHr2myQPgxeRKLYYS4=; b=aJnxDhv9BRLrgFiTS2utB6ZxBJGx1sKCoMTWFcSGf4sPChI2h0FbAC8BnalGqYEI+1 s8NP6Osvn016WDc5SVeDgOKkdUaPXOzG2vuX0sYXvfXc8Sx4Hps+0CgfsL0VoEAXzhcH ueY+DZgy4gSjM0leMeH9nNCIDc4hDPI4J4TgNuK1t9y2CC1GfKCmIS4JwMgiV83Yp/CB BwGSW/rIVIJdBmKlsHzNsQosSISTObOQxjmVTXWCPkPSObEONVKzm/3ktB81II6jMq5W u0pkr5z1wfpmpjF9KhIlLbc/moUjmwyWPR+BWKJln0W+ZiTJSKONRK+Fzgv71hKtftYc WC9g==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkSDPE3yY3IJvNCPtCqW7FXPn8qxUeSu3kI6C7ymLMDl/FS3pgygRKlh5cK09hj5zVA+//e
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.43.34.137 with SMTP id ss9mr10564048icb.11.1424966349696; Thu, 26 Feb 2015 07:59:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.36.120.6 with HTTP; Thu, 26 Feb 2015 07:59:09 -0800 (PST)
X-Originating-IP: [192.149.252.11]
In-Reply-To: <63E6A7996E894E4167393345@JcK-HP8200.jck.com>
References: <63E6A7996E894E4167393345@JcK-HP8200.jck.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2015 10:59:09 -0500
Message-ID: <CAAQiQRfS68SnQafqe9rzyLBOWw3UhGS7e80sWKUTHdrw88wNMw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: (long/architectural version) Last Call: <draft-faltstrom-uri-10.txt> (The Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) DNS Resource Record) to Proposed Standard
From: Andrew Newton <andy@hxr.us>
To: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="bcaec518647e174c4d050fffd59d"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/Q0FWRpUknsxDlKWMeRJZCeskxRs>
Cc: Patrik Fältström <paf@netnod.se>, 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: Thu, 26 Feb 2015 15:59:12 -0000
<snipping a lot of text...> On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 9:16 AM, John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> wrote: > If (as I believe to be the case) the main > argument for this URI RR is that it is less problematic than > NAPTR, S-NAPTR, U-NAPTR, and (maybe) SRV, then this document > should probably include a plan about phasing some of those, or > at least some instances of some of those, out. I was unaware that there was a need for only one way to do this. It seems to me that the multiple methods could co-exist without collision. While I agree with your observations about these methods, I do not like the idea of the IETF mandating single solutions unnecessarily (in its specifications). > If, instead, > these five (or fewer, see below) types of potentially-iterative > indirect references are to exist in parallel, it becomes > reasonable to ask that a standards-track document explain how > many more of them are expected or why we should assume this one > is the last. > I'm confused. How can we know a better idea will come along until it has actually surfaced? > While multiple ways to do the > same thing are sometimes an advantage, they are more often a > source of confusion (and, again, potential bad implementation > behavior and attack vectors). It would be _really_ good to do > some architectural work that would lead to both design and > applicability statements, rather than continuing to add more of > them without an obvious plan. > I agree with a lot of things you have written here. But I'm wary of any effort regarding a grand unifying architecture, if that is where such an effort takes us... especially given the recent discussions on URIs/URNs. That said, there may be room for some discussion here as there are other ideas in this space (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-newton-link-rr/ ). -andy
- Re:(long/architectural version) Last Call: <draft… John C Klensin
- Re: (long/architectural version) Last Call: <draf… Mark Andrews
- Re: (long/architectural version) Last Call: <draf… Andrew Newton
- Re: (long/architectural version) Last Call: <draf… Patrik Fältström
- Re: (long/architectural version) Last Call: <draf… John C Klensin
- Re: (long/architectural version) Last Call: <draf… Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: (long/architectural version) Last Call: <draf… John C Klensin