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

[Nico Williams <[e-mail]>]

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?)

> - 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).

+1

> - 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

In for a penny, in for a pound.

Nico
--