RE: Where we stand and where we are going

John C Klensin <> Thu, 27 June 2002 19:12 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from by (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <> (original mail from; Thu, 27 Jun 2002 15:12:01 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from by (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <> for (ORCPT; Thu, 27 Jun 2002 15:12:01 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from by (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <> for (ORCPT; Thu, 27 Jun 2002 15:12:00 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ( []) by (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) with ESMTP id <>; Thu, 27 Jun 2002 15:12:00 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from [] (helo=P2) by with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 17NegC-00007h-00; Thu, 27 Jun 2002 19:11:45 +0000
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 15:11:44 -0400
From: John C Klensin <>
Subject: RE: Where we stand and where we are going
In-reply-to: <>
To: Nicolas Popp <>
Cc: 'Leslie Daigle' <>, Michael Mealling <>,
Message-id: <9919025.1025190704@localhost>
MIME-version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Mulberry/3.0.0a3 (Win32)
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Content-disposition: inline
References: <7FC3066C236FD511BC5900508BAC86FED21D31@trestles.inte>
List-Owner: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Help: <>, <>
List-Id: <>

--On Thursday, 27 June, 2002 11:44 -0700 Nicolas Popp
<> wrote:

> I strongly agree with Leslie on that one (it reminds me of the
> WAP binary XML debate).
> That being said, I am not even sure why we are focusing on the
> transport at this stage.

Let me both agree and try to answer your question...

There are, at the moment, exactly two protocol, or
near-protocol, documents on the table that address basic issues
at sublayer two (I'm not counting the ex-RealNames one because
of it "deal with the other facets later" approach -- doesn't
make it wrong, just in a different category).  One is SLS, the
other is "Chinese character string" one.  Most of us aren't
competent to discuss the latter in any depth, so why not discuss
the former?  :-(

Of course, the solution to this is "more drafts"

> Maybe it is just me, but my recollection from the Mineapolis
> meeting is that we still have substantial conceptual issues
> for which I have not seen clear definition or consensus. 
>> From the top of my head: what is the final list for layer 2
>> facets (e.g.
> what about service-type, serviceID and network-location?
> String matching rules: how fuzzy does it need to be? Do we
> need to standardize string matching rules within a cultural
> context (e.g. geography & language) or is it up to the
> service? should the match fuzzines be specified in the query
> (distance function)? How? Should the output be DNS names or
> URIs?...

There is more on some of this in the new version of dns-search
(pieces will go out tonight or tomorrow if I don't die of
heatstroke first), but we will still need protocol documents.

The list I sent you some months ago when you asked what people
should be doing is, of course, an orthogonal cut at the above.