Re: [kitten] New URI Discovery Draft

[Greg Hudson <[e-mail]>]

On 09/24/2016 12:29 PM, Petr Spacek wrote:
> Just wondering out loud, not insisting on it:
> If we say there is no criticality, it will be impossible to add later on.

I think that's fine.  Let's not over-engineer this.

> What about using capitalization to indicate criticality of a flag?

It's definitely not worth introducing case-sensitivity to an otherwise
case-insensitive DNS value format.

> Or maybe we can limit valid flags to lowercase ASCII letters for now so there
> is a room for extension in future?

Criticality cannot be introduced later as an extension.  But again, I
don't think we need to engineer critical flags into this spec.  Flags
are only barely necessary at all.

> There is no definition of "host" and there is none in RFC 768.
> Can it be IP(v?) address?
> Can it be DNS name?
> How this field should be encoded into the URI?

Per the implementation, it can be a DNS hostname, and IPv4 address, or
an IPv6 address enclosed in square brackets.

>>    o Value: "kkdcp"
>>    o Description: Kerberos Key Distribution Center Proxy Protocol
>>    o Residual Format: https://host[:port][/path]
> 
> This is technically URI inside URI, am I right?
> How is it encoded? Should usual %-encoding be used here?

% encoding is not used.  Formally, you can imagine the https URI syntax
being incorporated into the syntax of the krb5srv part.  I'm not sure
how best to express that in the document.