Re: [kitten] Kerberos Service Discovery using DNS

[Nathaniel McCallum <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, 2015-03-11 at 10:25 +0100, Rick van Rein wrote:
> > > Please do not overlool SCTP; it has the reliability and size- 
> > > scalability of TCP but the speed and ordering advantages of UDP. 
> > >   Even when Kerberos does not currently use SCTP, it may need to 
> > > in  future updates, possibly to handle large key sizes during 
> > > PKINIT.
> > 
> > Since there is not currently an SCTP protocol defined, we cannot 
> > write  a method for discovering it. Feel free to work on one. :)
> 
> Hmm, yes this chicken-and-egg problem is everywhere where new
> protocols are introduced, and it is generally considered valid 
> reasoning.
> I won’t press this hard, but think it leads to an impasse, which is 
> why I mentioned it; you are very specific about UDP and TCP and so 
> you are explicitly passing by SCTP.

This isn't a chicken-and-egg problem. There is a dependency, but it is 
not circular.

Future transports and services will define new URI formats and 
prefixes, respectively, in their own RFCs. The scope of this draft is 
to define:
1. an extensible discovery protocol
2. prefixes for pre-existing services
3. URI formats for pre-existing transports

In short, don't feel like we have to cram SCTP into this draft. As I 
mentioned before, please feel free to write up an SCTP draft. It can 
define a URI format and reference this draft as a normative reference.

Nathaniel