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 <nico@cryptonector.com> Fri, 27 February 2015 20:37 UTC

Return-Path: <nico@cryptonector.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 598F61A014D for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 Feb 2015 12:37:37 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.366
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.366 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] autolearn=no
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 LVGNu5Hjhn0Q for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 Feb 2015 12:37:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from homiemail-a54.g.dreamhost.com (sub4.mail.dreamhost.com [69.163.253.135]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F3DB1A014A for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 27 Feb 2015 12:37:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from homiemail-a54.g.dreamhost.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by homiemail-a54.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 20066400F8A29; Fri, 27 Feb 2015 12:37:36 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=cryptonector.com; h=date :from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; s= cryptonector.com; bh=0kL1q7/Q8GWT1vI623TFRx1mVgI=; b=UqOh0mGh0ez GmQk67LXpPblrPY8a9cbE2toFL76b8Xndk460ItfHBKyn/wIoCczRjTlTKqUimJx Vl222lDxknPr1jLvoSEsrqfR68FxrjhedT05hiAY6PS8o5Rb7V0GW172rEBMXPSH c28XVlRPc9LWLP+MzYHLjdO7M9qSxj4w=
Received: from localhost (108-207-244-174.lightspeed.austtx.sbcglobal.net [108.207.244.174]) (Authenticated sender: nico@cryptonector.com) by homiemail-a54.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id A4163400F8A28; Fri, 27 Feb 2015 12:37:35 -0800 (PST)
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2015 14:37:35 -0600
From: Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>
To: Patrik =?iso-8859-1?B?RuRsdHN0cvZt?= <paf@netnod.se>
Subject: draft-newton-link-rr (was Re: Last Call: <draft-faltstrom-uri-10.txt> (The Uniform Resource) Identifier (URI) DNS Resource Record) to Proposed Standard
Message-ID: <20150227203732.GC11145@localhost>
References: <20150127223859.28024.43756.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <4257D8A3-0EFE-40E3-B0AD-8E23772B7693@mnot.net> <CAAQiQRdLvcQLskOuo7g_=SfmowCtyyF7OwWb-Y0nsRDeTdgncA@mail.gmail.com> <39D5E26A-E1FE-4C77-9624-5E9396497F65@mnot.net> <83FCB47C-ED48-4B26-B898-F1A47528595E@netnod.se>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <83FCB47C-ED48-4B26-B898-F1A47528595E@netnod.se>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/uSxIdl-m8aiPpJu8BiAzNFNDeJM>
Cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, 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: Fri, 27 Feb 2015 20:37:37 -0000

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
--