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

[Melinda Shore <[e-mail]>]

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