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

Hi all,

This discussion reminds me of something else:
someone (I think Jana?) mentioned the possibility of negotiating
more than just the transport protocol, e.g. even the usage of IPv6,
with a negotiation protocol.

I recently talked about this with someone who knows more about
IPv6 than me (actually not hard to find such a person!), and that
someone said that a standard is already in place for determining
whether IPv6 can be used **via DNS**.

So, whether or not the approach discussed here is adopted, for
the choice of IPv6 at least, DNS seems to be the way to go...
right? Opinions?

Cheers,
Michael

Melinda Shore schrieb:
> Caitlin Bestler wrote:
>> The main problem I see is that the comma separated mechanism is 
>> probably insufficient to deal with the combination of
>> encryption protocols, transport protocols and special adaptations 
>> (RDMA, SCTP Partial Reliability, etc.) Something more
>> along the lines of a unique Java class name might be needed, with 
>> simple reserved names for the obvious: tcp, udp, sctp, ...
>
> I like structured namespaces but I think that an
> hierarchical one might be overly limiting for something
> like this, where future needs might not be possible
> to anticipate.  I'm inclined to think that this is
> one application for which a faceted classification/
> namespace might be very well-suited.
>
> I'm not crazy about adding yet more cruft to DNS,
> either, but its advantage, which isn't trivial, is that
> it doesn't require changes to other protocols and that
> stuff that implements this approach is interoperable
> with stuff that doesn't.  There also shouldn't be
> performance impacts on the transport, nor would there
> be ... firewall traversal impacts.
>
> Melinda
> _______________________________________________
> tae mailing list
> tae@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tae