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

[Sam Hartman <[e-mail]>]

>>>>> "John" == John C Klensin <[e-mail]> writes:

    John> I think the rest is a bit of a judgment call.  While I'd be
    John> happy to see a comprehensive document that would address all
    John> of those issues, I would also like to get a good description
    John> of the RRTYPE published somewhere soon, ideally a couple of
    John> years ago.  It seems to me that making a complete analysis of
    John> security alternatives, or a complete analysis of the URI
    John> situation as it relates to this RRTYPE, much less both are
    John> likely to be a _lot_ of effort and that, if we want to get the
    John> document published, what should be done should probably be
    John> confined to explicitly noting the issues, e.g., that any
    John> indirection through the DNS raises security issues that need
    John> careful understanding and for which there is no magic bullet.

I'm happy with an informational document that does the above and claims
only to describe the existing RR type.
I'm not happy with a standards-track document that fails to cover the
security issues in significantly better detail.