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

[Andrew Newton <[e-mail]>]

On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 2:07 AM, Patrik Fältström <[e-mail]> 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
>
>
I think that is simply solved by stating none of it overrides the content
negotiation of the application. But a mismatch here is an adminstrative
error, in my opinion.


> - Given experience with length of URI / text fields in DNS, I would have
> had the encoding of RDATA as "flag" "flag" "flag" "uri" (while being
> nervous over the size restrictions of the URI...which is the reason in URI
> the uri is all of RDATA except the weight and priority).
>
> - I am also nervous over the size of the RRSet, i.e. same issue I see with
> NAPTR, and the reason why I added the prefix (like SRV) to the URI RR
>

I plan to move to use this advice. Thanks.

-andy