Re: [kitten] Adoption of draft-mccallum-kitten-krb-service-discovery?

[Nico Williams <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 12:47:17PM -0400, Nathaniel McCallum wrote:
> Agreed to a URI scheme.
> 
> However, HTTP w/ GET is undefined and only exists in one codebase. It
> also has some real idempotency and space limitation drawbacks.

Idempotency is not an issue (the KDC exchanges are idempotent, with the
sole exception of account lockout on N incorrect passwords, which is and
always has been a very bad idea and which will not be relevant in any
way once we have PAKE), but the URI size limitations are real.

But this is a distraction.  The point is that we have enough options to
express, and that's why we need a URI scheme.

> > - Can you research whether the DNS community at the IETF has
> >   addressed these issues before?
> > 
> >   If they have not, then we'll have to bring this up to them.
> > 
> >   If they have, what was the outcome?  Have conditions in the market
> >   changed?  Should the IETF review these issues again?
> 
> Yes. I'm working on this now. However, I'm less sure that UX designers
> will be keen to back a "generic record" interface. I do think it will
> be possible to get buy-in for URI records.

That seems probable, yes.

> > - Can you ask some DNS hosters to inveigh as to whether they would
> >   be willing to add arbitrary new RR types?  (Presumably with a UI
> >   that requires the user to paste base64-/hex-encoded RDATA.)
> > 
> >   I think this research will be very valuable in reviewing this
> >   document, and perhaps using alternative designs (e.g., defining a
> >   new RR type, or using TXT, or updating RFC7553 and perhaps
> >   promoting it to Proposed Standard).
> 
> I plan to ask some of the providers I know.

Thanks,

Nico
--