IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Patrik Fältström <paf@netnod.se> Mon, 23 February 2015 13:04 UTC

Return-Path: <paf@netnod.se>
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 7DE711A03A1 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 Feb 2015 05:04:58 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.061
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.061 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 GDG55WVKFB2B for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 Feb 2015 05:04:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.netnod.se (mail.netnod.se [192.71.80.100]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E5EC71A1A57 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 23 Feb 2015 05:04:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [IPv6:2a01:3f0:1::f06f:d409:65b5:f538] (unknown [IPv6:2a01:3f0:1:0:f06f:d409:65b5:f538]) (Authenticated sender: paf) by mail.netnod.se (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E5E377C078; Mon, 23 Feb 2015 14:04:54 +0100 (CET)
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_60F2EE5E-986B-48C9-9ACF-BEE96F3BAEE8"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha1"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2070.6\))
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-faltstrom-uri-10.txt> (The Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) DNS Resource Record) to Proposed Standard
X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail 2.5b5
From: Patrik Fältström <paf@netnod.se>
In-Reply-To: <9EB44D8A-278B-42FC-A542-1C182AD43128@netnod.se>
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2015 14:04:54 +0100
Message-Id: <3C46B3A5-5D3A-4A40-A564-21B567E58239@netnod.se>
References: <20150127223859.28024.43756.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <4257D8A3-0EFE-40E3-B0AD-8E23772B7693@mnot.net> <6F9BB11D-C224-4D7B-A06C-41EACBAAB4B2@netnod.se> <54C9DA42.5040901@cisco.com> <9EB44D8A-278B-42FC-A542-1C182AD43128@netnod.se>
To: "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>, Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2070.6)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/fvfXqIgm5_Eo0rophEHCm6Nb-2A>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 23 Feb 2015 08:06:04 -0800
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: Mon, 23 Feb 2015 13:04:58 -0000

All,


Due to a mistake from my side, the new version I have been hacking in based on comments coming back during the still open last call was posted the other day. I am sorry for that and my apologies for people being confused.

It was my intention "only" to describe here what I have found so far in comments, so let me summarize in no specific order:

- It is confusing to have a full section called "examples" and then only have one example.

- The registries that existed when the draft was first posted was (only) the ENUM registry, while now we also have a registry for SRV prefixes, and this draft can and should reference both

- The example(s) given should because the draft reference a registry use actual values that are registered.

- As no web browser have implemented lookup for the URI RRType (as far as I know), the example should not be using "homepage" as an example, but something else

- Minor clarifications that mostly are editorial

Some of these, but not all, are already implemented in the prematurely posted version -11 which should not have been posted.

Once again, my apologies. Thanks to Eliot, Mark, Suzanne and Pete for helping me.

   Patrik

> On 29 jan 2015, at 08:05, Patrik Fältström <paf@netnod.se> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> On 29 jan 2015, at 07:59, Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com> wrote:
>> 
>> 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].
> 
> Ok, I have been sleeping by the wheel!
> 
> Mea culpa.
> 
> Let me come back on this.
> 
>   Patrik
> 
>> 
>> Eliot
>> 
>> [1] http://www.iana.org/form/ports-services
>> [2] http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6335
>>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email