Re: [tae] New draft: announcing the supported transports via DNS

[Joe Touch <[e-mail]>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1



Dan Wing wrote:
...
>>>> Do you have a proposal you could share on the mailing list or
>>>> in an I-D?
> No proposal; just trying to see if proposed solutions can 
> handle cases I consider useful.
> 
>> Can you enumerate those requirements, or shall we just throw things at the
>> wall?  This goes back to Caitlin's post
>> <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tae/current/msg00114.html> which
>> suggested we take a step back and look at what we want. 

Caitlin's post considers a few candidate solutions, but doesn't explain
the requirements.

>> I'm all for doing
>> that.  This list has been too quiet, so we wrote a straw man.  I take it you
>> don't like the straw man because it's trying to cover the DNS use-case, and
>> your use-case is IP address literals, and your use-case can incur additional
>> round trip(s) to learn which transport protocols the server supports.

Any solution should be very clear about what it assumes already exists,
and what its limitations are. I would characterize the strawman as a
"assume the DNS" case. So any solution that uses the DNS needs to show
how the transport protocol used for the DNS is itself negotiated, and
needs to show how the solution applies when DNS names are not used by
the application.

My concern is that a DNS solution solves only the case where apps use
DNS names - and may have further limitations (what happens when a name
resolves to multiple IPs, and those IPs are on different machines and
support different transports?). If you have a non-DNS solution, it seems
like it would work for the DNS case.

So ultimately the question is "is a DNS-ony  solution a useful component
to an overall solution?" I'm struggling to see how.

Joe
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)

iEYEARECAAYFAkq3js4ACgkQE5f5cImnZrtw2QCgkcd+cjxsbP9MjvGmplTf0+ua
aFAAn0Ewq58evz4B8iL/UqSbypIEyrYs
=OJ8A
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----