IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Last Call: <draft-faltstrom-uri-10.txt> (The Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) DNS Resource Record) to Proposed Standard

Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com> Thu, 29 January 2015 06:59 UTC

Return-Path: <lear@cisco.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 F3A871A0035 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 28 Jan 2015 22:59:14 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.211
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.211 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] 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 eF-boPY6Vk83 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 28 Jan 2015 22:59:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from aer-iport-3.cisco.com (aer-iport-3.cisco.com [173.38.203.53]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B6D991A000C for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Jan 2015 22:59:12 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1542; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1422514753; x=1423724353; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:cc:subject: references:in-reply-to; bh=6mqEojSvE95vAWZab9f9tUcfSR/6J/7A9Pxv49nuzWk=; b=hPGL7Pxwc1vBsmFsOs74ZstiokDSU3ku44Jv2D4wfDY/16C7+MPeVnY8 226VZxw0/hfhQZGthb1kM5AnPlxiY7PlRSXxini2wPmRUrRv6bzM04M8K 0PzvG/Q2v//xGB27+Kf3e+Bkvi+A1JFcAXiGfEz61whpGIM2m3000LOM0 Y=;
X-Files: signature.asc : 486
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0DbBABZ2clU/xbLJq1ag1hagwDBWoVxAoFfAQEBAQF9hA0BAQMBI1UBBQsLIRYEBwICCQMCAQIBRQYBDAEHAQEFiBsIDb94hz+OQwEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBARePeAeCaIFBBZBHgSlPhVeBTYRrjA4iggIcFIE9PYJzAQEB
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.09,485,1418083200"; d="asc'?scan'208";a="326660026"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-2.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 29 Jan 2015 06:59:11 +0000
Received: from [10.61.105.176] (dhcp-10-61-105-176.cisco.com [10.61.105.176]) by aer-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t0T6xANa019027; Thu, 29 Jan 2015 06:59:10 GMT
Message-ID: <54C9DA42.5040901@cisco.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2015 07:59:14 +0100
From: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Patrik Fältström <paf@netnod.se>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-faltstrom-uri-10.txt> (The Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) DNS Resource Record) to Proposed Standard
References: <20150127223859.28024.43756.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <4257D8A3-0EFE-40E3-B0AD-8E23772B7693@mnot.net> <6F9BB11D-C224-4D7B-A06C-41EACBAAB4B2@netnod.se>
In-Reply-To: <6F9BB11D-C224-4D7B-A06C-41EACBAAB4B2@netnod.se>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="XPiw3R2ULOePPCbp1LV52LLKBgqjJJopo"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/a5KQ4GU9Z_Zuf1X_TONGMKviBAs>
Cc: 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, 29 Jan 2015 06:59:15 -0000

Hi Patrik,

On this one point:


On 1/28/15 9:46 AM, Patrik Fältström wrote:

> The RRType is registered and can not be changed.
>
> That said, what can be referred to is a "better" registry for services. IETF do not have a registry for services for SRV. If IETF did, then I would have referenced that registry. I think it is "stupid" to create a new registry.

Stupid or not, it exists.  Go to [1] and select "Service name only". 
RFC 6335 updated RFC 2782 on this point[2].

Eliot

[1] http://www.iana.org/form/ports-services
[2] http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6335

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email