From nobody Mon Aug 4 15:17:59 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: int-dir@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: int-dir@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2709E1A0379 for ; Mon, 4 Aug 2014 15:17:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.978 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.978 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dZlBQv5h2z8r for ; Mon, 4 Aug 2014 15:17:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wi0-x233.google.com (mail-wi0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::233]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5A4401A0369 for ; Mon, 4 Aug 2014 15:17:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-wi0-f179.google.com with SMTP id f8so272647wiw.12 for ; Mon, 04 Aug 2014 15:17:46 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=jAfOvll6efvMtSkuwISv1SdZssk8DbzPZkp/Nyo70KU=; b=ZjkPl+A5kcJyluJH+yyRB4WidpH+GfbCg9HauuevqmfWEv/sm2NVvBFA9CsRZ41bZI MeuDKpu4NBD/z5CHQCzAV3ZWYYYAbqb3qaV1UXzQv/6SIp0EJq8FWUGqPoXbgeHs9Ky9 0F7+Ang7cnHf3iODlZHg/pCHCZwR7nsb1D9SHh4GAE2HzvL8VN0MpvYKlYNsR90PE6J7 86rzx/tkwKys24gh9pNRch1RZFp6P3ZTCAgNNh71Z8Rx9hmswhhDqdaUJ7M1ylZArV46 2aSo+ZP7iApmb4NiLeIG60fIbTxpQ0OJuxuCgP8+PGSQwIrocnNfVXkIqp55/EERPd4z agRw== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.194.20.230 with SMTP id q6mr36463815wje.43.1407190665175; Mon, 04 Aug 2014 15:17:45 -0700 (PDT) Sender: jinmei.tatuya@gmail.com Received: by 10.194.123.164 with HTTP; Mon, 4 Aug 2014 15:17:45 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <6A3222D7-564D-45A1-A9B2-7DAD5A7D4897@asgaard.org> References: <076231CF-0D5E-43C9-9B19-E579C14A1020@nominum.com> <25E8B6E7-3751-4A16-82A3-08B10591C076@gmail.com> <56265EDF-82D0-4174-A483-4990AFD3DB66@asgaard.org> <6A3222D7-564D-45A1-A9B2-7DAD5A7D4897@asgaard.org> Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2014 15:17:45 -0700 X-Google-Sender-Auth: aXRRirKx6rRxraEjlIY5qlviYz0 Message-ID: From: =?UTF-8?B?56We5piO6YGU5ZOJ?= To: Christopher LILJENSTOLPE Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/int-dir/fGSuLhil13FizTFHxR-YpBL8QKc Cc: ralf.weber@nominum.com, Ted Lemon , "" Subject: Re: [Int-dir] Could I get a few DNS experts to review draft-faltstrom-uri? X-BeenThere: int-dir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "This list is for discussion between the members of the Internet Area directorate." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2014 22:17:49 -0000 At Thu, 31 Jul 2014 13:27:31 -0700, "Christopher LILJENSTOLPE" wrote: > Thank's Tatuya! You are correct in your assumption. There is no > drop-dead date, but Ted would prefer it sooner, rather than later. This is my review comment. I've found a few possible issues that may have to be resolved before publication. But I'm not sure if these are sufficiently critical to be a blocking issue. - Section 3: I don't understand the rationale of this sentence (or I don't understand what it means): Using prefix labels, such as underscored service tags, prevents the use of wildcards, as constructs as _s2._s1.*.example.net. are not possible in the DNS, see RFC 4592 [RFC4592]. I don't understand which part of RFC 4592 is referenced here, but as far as I can see the RFC rather states such use of wildcards is acceptable (see Section 2.1.3). Perhaps what it tries to say is that, for example, "_s2._s1.*.example.net. cannot be used to synthesize an answer for _s2._s1._s0.example.net." If so, that is correct, but the above sentence couldn't be interpreted that way to me. - Section 3: the previous point aside, the rest of this section seems too vague to me to understand. For example, phrases like "subtle management problems" are literally subtle. Some concrete examples (even if they are hypothetical) may help. - Section 4.4: I don't see why this field needs to be enclosed with double-quotes. It's placed in the end of the RDATA, and there should be no ambiguity or other issues that would require quotation. It's also not clear to me how IRIs are represented in the presentation (textual) format. For example, could there be a utf-8 encoded string here? If so, that's quite different from the usual practice for the presentation format of existing RR types, where only printable ascii characters are used. - Section 5, about the "D" flag: (asking simply because I don't know) is it enough to publish an RFC for introducing a new flag value of NAPTR? Isn't there any registration procedure required, such as IANA considerations? - References: I wonder whether RFC 3404 should be listed in the normative references section, given that this draft makes a protocol update (a new flag value of NAPTR RDATA) to the RFC Editorial nits: - Section 1: s/need/needs/ need to know both the hostname and the protocol that the URI is to be - Section 1: s/because/is because/ interested in. This because data in the service field of the NAPTR - Section 4.1: I see why there is a "duplicate" dot, but it still looks awkward. Maybe we could remove one dot, or enclose "example.com." with quotes. Service Parameter "A:B:C" for host example.com.. Then we would query - Section 4.5: s/are/be/ The Target field can also contain an IRI, but with the additional requirements that it are in UTF-8 [RFC3629], and the requirement that - Section 7: s/seond/second/ It is instead an extension and the seond step of the S-NAPTR - Section 8: s/know/knows/ a replacement for U-NAPTR [RFC4848]. The URI Resource Record Type is though only interesting when one know a base domain name, a protocol - Section 8: s/exists/exist/ records of any kind are used to look up what services exists for a - Section 9: s/because/is because/ SRV record. This because it like the SRV record can only be looked - Section 9: s/return/returns/ number, the URI record return a full URI. As such, it can be viewed -- JINMEI, Tatuya From nobody Mon Aug 4 15:58:01 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: int-dir@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: int-dir@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E54891A03E5 for ; Mon, 4 Aug 2014 15:57:59 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.601 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Ls9fCZbD1GGd for ; Mon, 4 Aug 2014 15:57:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp1.emailarray.com (smtp1.emailarray.com [65.39.216.14]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BDFF11A03DE for ; Mon, 4 Aug 2014 15:57:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 7293 invoked by uid 89); 4 Aug 2014 22:57:55 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ?172.24.10.86?) (Y2RsQGFzZ2FhcmQub3JnQDE5OC4xNDcuMjI2LjY=) (POLARISLOCAL) by smtp1.emailarray.com with (DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted) SMTP; 4 Aug 2014 22:57:54 -0000 From: "Christopher LILJENSTOLPE" To: "=?utf-8?b?56We5piO6YGU5ZOJ?=" Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2014 15:57:52 -0700 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: <076231CF-0D5E-43C9-9B19-E579C14A1020@nominum.com> <25E8B6E7-3751-4A16-82A3-08B10591C076@gmail.com> <56265EDF-82D0-4174-A483-4990AFD3DB66@asgaard.org> <6A3222D7-564D-45A1-A9B2-7DAD5A7D4897@asgaard.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Mailer: MailMate (1.8r4229) X-PolarisMail-Flags: x Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/int-dir/vADb53fxl6IsEaafAhGms0VcLE8 Cc: ralf.weber@nominum.com, Ted Lemon , "" Subject: Re: [Int-dir] Could I get a few DNS experts to review draft-faltstrom-uri? X-BeenThere: int-dir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "This list is for discussion between the members of the Internet Area directorate." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2014 22:58:00 -0000 On 4 Aug 2014, at 15:17, 神明達哉 wrote: > At Thu, 31 Jul 2014 13:27:31 -0700, > "Christopher LILJENSTOLPE" wrote: > >> Thank's Tatuya! You are correct in your assumption. There is no >> drop-dead date, but Ted would prefer it sooner, rather than later. > > This is my review comment. I've found a few possible issues that may > have to be resolved before publication. But I'm not sure if these are > sufficiently critical to be a blocking issue. Thank you Tatuya! Christopher > > - Section 3: I don't understand the rationale of this sentence (or I > don't understand what it means): > > Using prefix labels, such as underscored service tags, prevents the > use of wildcards, as constructs as _s2._s1.*.example.net. are not > possible in the DNS, see RFC 4592 [RFC4592]. > > I don't understand which part of RFC 4592 is referenced here, but as > far as I can see the RFC rather states such use of wildcards is > acceptable (see Section 2.1.3). Perhaps what it tries to say is > that, for example, "_s2._s1.*.example.net. cannot be used to > synthesize an answer for _s2._s1._s0.example.net." If so, that is > correct, but the above sentence couldn't be interpreted that way to > me. > > - Section 3: the previous point aside, the rest of this section seems > too vague to me to understand. For example, phrases like "subtle > management problems" are literally subtle. Some concrete examples > (even if they are hypothetical) may help. > > - Section 4.4: I don't see why this field needs to be enclosed with > double-quotes. It's placed in the end of the RDATA, and there > should be no ambiguity or other issues that would require quotation. > It's also not clear to me how IRIs are represented in the > presentation (textual) format. For example, could there be a utf-8 > encoded string here? If so, that's quite different from the usual > practice for the presentation format of existing RR types, where > only printable ascii characters are used. > > - Section 5, about the "D" flag: (asking simply because I don't know) > is it enough to publish an RFC for introducing a new flag value of > NAPTR? Isn't there any registration procedure required, such as > IANA considerations? > > - References: I wonder whether RFC 3404 should be listed in the > normative references section, given that this draft makes a protocol > update (a new flag value of NAPTR RDATA) to the RFC > > Editorial nits: > - Section 1: s/need/needs/ > need to know both the hostname and the protocol that the URI is to be > > - Section 1: s/because/is because/ > interested in. This because data in the service field of the NAPTR > > - Section 4.1: I see why there is a "duplicate" dot, but it still > looks awkward. Maybe we could remove one dot, or enclose > "example.com." with quotes. > Service Parameter "A:B:C" for host example.com.. Then we would query > > - Section 4.5: s/are/be/ > The Target field can also contain an IRI, but with the additional > requirements that it are in UTF-8 [RFC3629], and the requirement that > > - Section 7: s/seond/second/ > It is instead an extension and the seond step of the S-NAPTR > > - Section 8: s/know/knows/ > a replacement for U-NAPTR [RFC4848]. The URI Resource Record Type is > though only interesting when one know a base domain name, a protocol > > - Section 8: s/exists/exist/ > records of any kind are used to look up what services exists for a > > - Section 9: s/because/is because/ > SRV record. This because it like the SRV record can only be looked > > - Section 9: s/return/returns/ > number, the URI record return a full URI. As such, it can be viewed > > -- > JINMEI, Tatuya -- 李柯睿 Avt tace, avt loqvere meliora silentio Check my PGP key here: http://www.asgaard.org/cdl/cdl.asc Current vCard here: http://www.asgaard.org/cdl/cdl.vcf From nobody Mon Aug 4 16:00:37 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: int-dir@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: int-dir@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D2C6F1A03E6 for ; Mon, 4 Aug 2014 16:00:36 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.901 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xTIMflYN_7Bo for ; Mon, 4 Aug 2014 16:00:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp1.emailarray.com (smtp1.emailarray.com [65.39.216.14]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 464B51A03A9 for ; Mon, 4 Aug 2014 16:00:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 12072 invoked by uid 89); 4 Aug 2014 23:00:31 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ?172.24.10.86?) (Y2RsQGFzZ2FhcmQub3JnQDE5OC4xNDcuMjI2LjY=) (POLARISLOCAL) by smtp1.emailarray.com with (DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted) SMTP; 4 Aug 2014 23:00:30 -0000 From: "Christopher LILJENSTOLPE" To: ralf.weber@nominum.com Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2014 16:00:27 -0700 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: <076231CF-0D5E-43C9-9B19-E579C14A1020@nominum.com> <25E8B6E7-3751-4A16-82A3-08B10591C076@gmail.com> <56265EDF-82D0-4174-A483-4990AFD3DB66@asgaard.org> <6A3222D7-564D-45A1-A9B2-7DAD5A7D4897@asgaard.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Mailer: MailMate (1.8r4229) X-PolarisMail-Flags: x Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/int-dir/Z5oFfN1Ny1RvhzpJNk2M0UNYDsU Cc: Ted Lemon , "" Subject: Re: [Int-dir] Could I get a few DNS experts to review draft-faltstrom-uri? X-BeenThere: int-dir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "This list is for discussion between the members of the Internet Area directorate." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2014 23:00:37 -0000 Greetings Ralf, Wondering if you had seen the request for review and if so, would you be able to also submit? If not, we need to find someone else soonish. Christopher On 4 Aug 2014, at 15:17, 神明達哉 wrote: > At Thu, 31 Jul 2014 13:27:31 -0700, > "Christopher LILJENSTOLPE" wrote: > >> Thank's Tatuya! You are correct in your assumption. There is no >> drop-dead date, but Ted would prefer it sooner, rather than later. > > This is my review comment. I've found a few possible issues that may > have to be resolved before publication. But I'm not sure if these are > sufficiently critical to be a blocking issue. > > - Section 3: I don't understand the rationale of this sentence (or I > don't understand what it means): > > Using prefix labels, such as underscored service tags, prevents the > use of wildcards, as constructs as _s2._s1.*.example.net. are not > possible in the DNS, see RFC 4592 [RFC4592]. > > I don't understand which part of RFC 4592 is referenced here, but as > far as I can see the RFC rather states such use of wildcards is > acceptable (see Section 2.1.3). Perhaps what it tries to say is > that, for example, "_s2._s1.*.example.net. cannot be used to > synthesize an answer for _s2._s1._s0.example.net." If so, that is > correct, but the above sentence couldn't be interpreted that way to > me. > > - Section 3: the previous point aside, the rest of this section seems > too vague to me to understand. For example, phrases like "subtle > management problems" are literally subtle. Some concrete examples > (even if they are hypothetical) may help. > > - Section 4.4: I don't see why this field needs to be enclosed with > double-quotes. It's placed in the end of the RDATA, and there > should be no ambiguity or other issues that would require quotation. > It's also not clear to me how IRIs are represented in the > presentation (textual) format. For example, could there be a utf-8 > encoded string here? If so, that's quite different from the usual > practice for the presentation format of existing RR types, where > only printable ascii characters are used. > > - Section 5, about the "D" flag: (asking simply because I don't know) > is it enough to publish an RFC for introducing a new flag value of > NAPTR? Isn't there any registration procedure required, such as > IANA considerations? > > - References: I wonder whether RFC 3404 should be listed in the > normative references section, given that this draft makes a protocol > update (a new flag value of NAPTR RDATA) to the RFC > > Editorial nits: > - Section 1: s/need/needs/ > need to know both the hostname and the protocol that the URI is to be > > - Section 1: s/because/is because/ > interested in. This because data in the service field of the NAPTR > > - Section 4.1: I see why there is a "duplicate" dot, but it still > looks awkward. Maybe we could remove one dot, or enclose > "example.com." with quotes. > Service Parameter "A:B:C" for host example.com.. Then we would query > > - Section 4.5: s/are/be/ > The Target field can also contain an IRI, but with the additional > requirements that it are in UTF-8 [RFC3629], and the requirement that > > - Section 7: s/seond/second/ > It is instead an extension and the seond step of the S-NAPTR > > - Section 8: s/know/knows/ > a replacement for U-NAPTR [RFC4848]. The URI Resource Record Type is > though only interesting when one know a base domain name, a protocol > > - Section 8: s/exists/exist/ > records of any kind are used to look up what services exists for a > > - Section 9: s/because/is because/ > SRV record. This because it like the SRV record can only be looked > > - Section 9: s/return/returns/ > number, the URI record return a full URI. As such, it can be viewed > > -- > JINMEI, Tatuya -- 李柯睿 Avt tace, avt loqvere meliora silentio Check my PGP key here: http://www.asgaard.org/cdl/cdl.asc Current vCard here: http://www.asgaard.org/cdl/cdl.vcf From nobody Mon Aug 4 23:45:44 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: int-dir@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: int-dir@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D5DA61B2911 for ; Mon, 4 Aug 2014 23:45:42 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.7 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bp7oa3lc2rJZ for ; Mon, 4 Aug 2014 23:45:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-la0-x22b.google.com (mail-la0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c03::22b]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B9FF31B28FE for ; Mon, 4 Aug 2014 23:45:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-la0-f43.google.com with SMTP id hr17so363562lab.30 for ; Mon, 04 Aug 2014 23:45:38 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=nKjJWAp+1nT/bYvgoNm0sbSw0+f4/9ETuvkxtM6IzO4=; b=e3yFwpuSBXyfzi7GuETRZTpcpEcoGizpCB0STLkQYIUBjgMiwZ76OUe0etReugxzqG T85PLwLvkXOJN1N6J1Kd5RdbEl/9iimpnkP3uQ3k1Yiis/geWgsI26rcqngttL3Vw6Xz VjcCn2DQSdNEVtblmiqLUooARtoQGriHRcWOWZF5mf6DYHr0ExNc+pzpZk6eD3NL5lO6 iQHFHdSZKtAtI3tHXRQpsCx/9b1WfbJH915l97FIdfTjLqXX5w0wLQa/kFVLfdD3a01m zf1Pv2wYayiCv8aTP5wj8TkGqUdb+yStFyjsFsSRcSkcyMwRHoLhMEV2KMXAtorkzi9p sUgg== X-Received: by 10.152.87.34 with SMTP id u2mr1820331laz.12.1407221138808; Mon, 04 Aug 2014 23:45:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [188.117.15.107] ([188.117.15.107]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id c7sm438987laf.2.2014.08.04.23.45.37 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 04 Aug 2014 23:45:38 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <53E07D8F.8070709@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2014 09:45:35 +0300 From: Jouni Korhonen User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: =?UTF-8?B?56We5piO6YGU5ZOJ?= , Christopher LILJENSTOLPE References: <076231CF-0D5E-43C9-9B19-E579C14A1020@nominum.com> <25E8B6E7-3751-4A16-82A3-08B10591C076@gmail.com> <56265EDF-82D0-4174-A483-4990AFD3DB66@asgaard.org> <6A3222D7-564D-45A1-A9B2-7DAD5A7D4897@asgaard.org> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/int-dir/TDYnSTVAW0brISznKwfaJkCa9BQ Cc: ralf.weber@nominum.com, Ted Lemon , "" Subject: Re: [Int-dir] Could I get a few DNS experts to review draft-faltstrom-uri? X-BeenThere: int-dir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "This list is for discussion between the members of the Internet Area directorate." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2014 06:45:43 -0000 Hi Just one comment below. 8/5/2014 1:17 AM, 神明達哉 kirjoitti: > At Thu, 31 Jul 2014 13:27:31 -0700, > "Christopher LILJENSTOLPE" wrote: > >> Thank's Tatuya! You are correct in your assumption. There is no >> drop-dead date, but Ted would prefer it sooner, rather than later. > > This is my review comment. I've found a few possible issues that may > have to be resolved before publication. But I'm not sure if these are > sufficiently critical to be a blocking issue. > > - Section 3: I don't understand the rationale of this sentence (or I > don't understand what it means): > > Using prefix labels, such as underscored service tags, prevents the > use of wildcards, as constructs as _s2._s1.*.example.net. are not > possible in the DNS, see RFC 4592 [RFC4592]. > > I don't understand which part of RFC 4592 is referenced here, but as > far as I can see the RFC rather states such use of wildcards is > acceptable (see Section 2.1.3). Perhaps what it tries to say is > that, for example, "_s2._s1.*.example.net. cannot be used to > synthesize an answer for _s2._s1._s0.example.net." If so, that is > correct, but the above sentence couldn't be interpreted that way to > me. The above originates from SRV RRs.. see Section 4.5. of RFC4592. In case of SRVs the "*.example.net" is a wildcard domain name but not the owner domain name (which would still be "_s2._s1.*.example.net" and that is not a wildcard domain name). What I think should be said in the draft is an exact reference i.e. pointing to the exact section in RFC4592 that actually explains the SRV RR case. - Jouni > > - Section 3: the previous point aside, the rest of this section seems > too vague to me to understand. For example, phrases like "subtle > management problems" are literally subtle. Some concrete examples > (even if they are hypothetical) may help. > > - Section 4.4: I don't see why this field needs to be enclosed with > double-quotes. It's placed in the end of the RDATA, and there > should be no ambiguity or other issues that would require quotation. > It's also not clear to me how IRIs are represented in the > presentation (textual) format. For example, could there be a utf-8 > encoded string here? If so, that's quite different from the usual > practice for the presentation format of existing RR types, where > only printable ascii characters are used. > > - Section 5, about the "D" flag: (asking simply because I don't know) > is it enough to publish an RFC for introducing a new flag value of > NAPTR? Isn't there any registration procedure required, such as > IANA considerations? > > - References: I wonder whether RFC 3404 should be listed in the > normative references section, given that this draft makes a protocol > update (a new flag value of NAPTR RDATA) to the RFC > > Editorial nits: > - Section 1: s/need/needs/ > need to know both the hostname and the protocol that the URI is to be > > - Section 1: s/because/is because/ > interested in. This because data in the service field of the NAPTR > > - Section 4.1: I see why there is a "duplicate" dot, but it still > looks awkward. Maybe we could remove one dot, or enclose > "example.com." with quotes. > Service Parameter "A:B:C" for host example.com.. Then we would query > > - Section 4.5: s/are/be/ > The Target field can also contain an IRI, but with the additional > requirements that it are in UTF-8 [RFC3629], and the requirement that > > - Section 7: s/seond/second/ > It is instead an extension and the seond step of the S-NAPTR > > - Section 8: s/know/knows/ > a replacement for U-NAPTR [RFC4848]. The URI Resource Record Type is > though only interesting when one know a base domain name, a protocol > > - Section 8: s/exists/exist/ > records of any kind are used to look up what services exists for a > > - Section 9: s/because/is because/ > SRV record. This because it like the SRV record can only be looked > > - Section 9: s/return/returns/ > number, the URI record return a full URI. As such, it can be viewed > > -- > JINMEI, Tatuya > > _______________________________________________ > Int-dir mailing list > Int-dir@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-dir > From nobody Mon Aug 4 23:51:31 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: int-dir@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: int-dir@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D5F91B2914 for ; Mon, 4 Aug 2014 23:51:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.901 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1e4aZZmQHn3J for ; Mon, 4 Aug 2014 23:51:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from shell-too.nominum.com (shell-too.nominum.com [64.89.228.229]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3B9601B2919 for ; Mon, 4 Aug 2014 23:51:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from archivist.nominum.com (archivist.nominum.com [64.89.228.108]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "*.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by shell-too.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 124191B82CD for ; Mon, 4 Aug 2014 23:51:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from webmail.nominum.com (cas-01.win.nominum.com [64.89.228.131]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "mail.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by archivist.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE9CB190043; Mon, 4 Aug 2014 23:51:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from MBX-03.WIN.NOMINUM.COM ([fe80::49f6:7fd1:12f3:2ecf]) by CAS-01.WIN.NOMINUM.COM ([64.89.228.131]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Mon, 4 Aug 2014 23:51:28 -0700 From: Ralf Weber To: Christopher LILJENSTOLPE Thread-Topic: [Int-dir] Could I get a few DNS experts to review draft-faltstrom-uri? Thread-Index: AQHPsDHuV1MFSRucb0WALomrfSD4ZJvBhLeAgACDmAA= Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2014 06:51:27 +0000 Message-ID: References: <076231CF-0D5E-43C9-9B19-E579C14A1020@nominum.com> <25E8B6E7-3751-4A16-82A3-08B10591C076@gmail.com> <56265EDF-82D0-4174-A483-4990AFD3DB66@asgaard.org> <6A3222D7-564D-45A1-A9B2-7DAD5A7D4897@asgaard.org> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [88.214.180.25] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/int-dir/bBdfmhjPRg1-adb0NaQgI96Twr0 Cc: Ted Lemon , "" Subject: Re: [Int-dir] Could I get a few DNS experts to review draft-faltstrom-uri? X-BeenThere: int-dir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "This list is for discussion between the members of the Internet Area directorate." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2014 06:51:30 -0000 Moin! On 05 Aug 2014, at 00:00, Christopher LILJENSTOLPE =3D wrote: > Wondering if you had seen the request for review and if so, =3D would you be able to also submit? If not, we need to find someone else =3D soonish. Not until now as I'm on a family vacation and list mail is sorted in =3D folders. Would a review early next week (Monday or Tuesday) be ok? So long -Ralf --- Ralf Weber Senior Infrastructure Architect office: +49 6446 4392053 mobile: +49 151 22659325 us: +1 650 817 5895 Nominum=3D20 www.nominum.com ralf.weber@nominum.com From nobody Tue Aug 5 06:02:52 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: int-dir@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: int-dir@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D46381ABB2D for ; Tue, 5 Aug 2014 06:02:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.901 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nHjvH7Z6tOe5 for ; Tue, 5 Aug 2014 06:02:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from shell-too.nominum.com (shell-too.nominum.com [64.89.228.229]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8CE3E1ABB34 for ; Tue, 5 Aug 2014 06:02:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from archivist.nominum.com (archivist.nominum.com [64.89.228.108]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "*.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by shell-too.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 107C21B85B1 for ; Tue, 5 Aug 2014 06:02:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from webmail.nominum.com (cas-01.win.nominum.com [64.89.228.131]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "mail.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by archivist.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F28EC190052; Tue, 5 Aug 2014 06:02:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.0.10.40] (71.233.43.215) by CAS-01.WIN.NOMINUM.COM (192.168.1.100) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.195.1; Tue, 5 Aug 2014 06:02:41 -0700 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" MIME-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\)) From: Ted Lemon In-Reply-To: Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2014 09:02:07 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <9C65454A-82FC-432D-842F-ED8B201768F0@nominum.com> References: <076231CF-0D5E-43C9-9B19-E579C14A1020@nominum.com> <25E8B6E7-3751-4A16-82A3-08B10591C076@gmail.com> <56265EDF-82D0-4174-A483-4990AFD3DB66@asgaard.org> <6A3222D7-564D-45A1-A9B2-7DAD5A7D4897@asgaard.org> To: Ralf Weber X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6) X-Originating-IP: [71.233.43.215] Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/int-dir/Kfjxy9RaNQ9IyVM1FuOS4VeWldI Cc: "" , Christopher LILJENSTOLPE Subject: Re: [Int-dir] Could I get a few DNS experts to review draft-faltstrom-uri? X-BeenThere: int-dir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "This list is for discussion between the members of the Internet Area directorate." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2014 13:02:52 -0000 On Aug 5, 2014, at 2:51 AM, Ralf Weber wrote: > Not until now as I'm on a family vacation and list mail is sorted in = > folders. Would a review early next week (Monday or Tuesday) be ok? Yes, of course. Thanks! From nobody Tue Aug 5 06:04:49 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: int-dir@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: int-dir@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1CF221ACCF3 for ; Tue, 5 Aug 2014 06:04:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.567 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.567 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FHZPaZtHcwn2 for ; Tue, 5 Aug 2014 06:04:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp2.emailarray.com (smtp.emailarray.com [69.28.212.198]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2E5F71AC0D2 for ; Tue, 5 Aug 2014 06:04:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 48205 invoked by uid 89); 5 Aug 2014 13:04:41 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ?204.29.149.87?) (Y2RsQGFzZ2FhcmQub3JnQDUwLjc2LjM0LjE4NQ==) (POLARISLOCAL) by smtp2.emailarray.com with (DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted) SMTP; 5 Aug 2014 13:04:41 -0000 From: "Christopher LILJENSTOLPE" To: "Ralf Weber" Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2014 06:04:38 -0700 Message-ID: <29416E8A-C79C-4181-8297-F9ED5D5EDA04@asgaard.org> In-Reply-To: References: <076231CF-0D5E-43C9-9B19-E579C14A1020@nominum.com> <25E8B6E7-3751-4A16-82A3-08B10591C076@gmail.com> <56265EDF-82D0-4174-A483-4990AFD3DB66@asgaard.org> <6A3222D7-564D-45A1-A9B2-7DAD5A7D4897@asgaard.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Mailer: MailMate (1.8r4229) X-PolarisMail-Flags: x Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/int-dir/-WUA-p_i_sVQQLoGsdRsPCY-qHY Cc: Ted Lemon , "" Subject: Re: [Int-dir] Could I get a few DNS experts to review draft-faltstrom-uri? X-BeenThere: int-dir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "This list is for discussion between the members of the Internet Area directorate." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2014 13:04:48 -0000 On 4 Aug 2014, at 23:51, Ralf Weber wrote: > Moin! > > On 05 Aug 2014, at 00:00, Christopher LILJENSTOLPE = > wrote: >> Wondering if you had seen the request for review and if so, = > would you be able to also submit? If not, we need to find someone else = > soonish. > Not until now as I'm on a family vacation and list mail is sorted in = > folders. Would a review early next week (Monday or Tuesday) be ok? That would be great Ralf - thx. Christopher > > So long > -Ralf > --- > Ralf Weber > Senior Infrastructure Architect > office: +49 6446 4392053 > mobile: +49 151 22659325 > us: +1 650 817 5895 > Nominum=20 > www.nominum.com > ralf.weber@nominum.com -- 李柯睿 Avt tace, avt loqvere meliora silentio Check my PGP key here: http://www.asgaard.org/cdl/cdl.asc Current vCard here: http://www.asgaard.org/cdl/cdl.vcf From nobody Tue Aug 5 10:32:01 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: int-dir@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: int-dir@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D4D071A002B for ; Tue, 5 Aug 2014 10:31:59 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.978 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.978 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZhvSmqpJ8NRp for ; Tue, 5 Aug 2014 10:31:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wg0-x231.google.com (mail-wg0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c00::231]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2B42A1A001E for ; Tue, 5 Aug 2014 10:31:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-wg0-f49.google.com with SMTP id k14so1393371wgh.20 for ; Tue, 05 Aug 2014 10:31:56 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=danerBQgHzxmK2An6P9DlY3JSImA2y/tDYJ+wG4CFLA=; b=XDiIlqT+iB49ynbhnCD69a7o7bcfUC0K9hzdbhQCxY6vmHOhBc4gQnME49vwel7dq7 hxpBc3BAMG1Dnql+yNLMBJBCk7EMR1s/m/LMuNqZPbpN/3RuXgsdqeZg7KX9PKkXSZUK 5bL++fkTvlNj+X96DvpPst0NYHwPieWxAHlt7Ut2dUQDmUBgznIcSnYlMwBtCD4l1iHr RiDtxblaDW8XKudUaERG5gEWmjrEyfOzvwDih5vJz30NkE/Dvpc2nTZLJUdEK912A9I9 sqV/Bn374tKUC7gX/I9IMW62eCVTiXDW1X8OqRj6nO1ocGYprqbtPOrZknfc1KfMQLRV 6NdA== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.194.63.228 with SMTP id j4mr8179782wjs.7.1407259915538; Tue, 05 Aug 2014 10:31:55 -0700 (PDT) Sender: jinmei.tatuya@gmail.com Received: by 10.194.123.164 with HTTP; Tue, 5 Aug 2014 10:31:55 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <53E07D8F.8070709@gmail.com> References: <076231CF-0D5E-43C9-9B19-E579C14A1020@nominum.com> <25E8B6E7-3751-4A16-82A3-08B10591C076@gmail.com> <56265EDF-82D0-4174-A483-4990AFD3DB66@asgaard.org> <6A3222D7-564D-45A1-A9B2-7DAD5A7D4897@asgaard.org> <53E07D8F.8070709@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2014 10:31:55 -0700 X-Google-Sender-Auth: OkoMYWCspQmKmMW7C_DmB-CAxs8 Message-ID: From: =?UTF-8?B?56We5piO6YGU5ZOJ?= To: Jouni Korhonen Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/int-dir/iRZOGIVgjF38CorHXYRb_vSQo-I Cc: ralf.weber@nominum.com, "" , Ted Lemon , Christopher LILJENSTOLPE Subject: Re: [Int-dir] Could I get a few DNS experts to review draft-faltstrom-uri? X-BeenThere: int-dir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "This list is for discussion between the members of the Internet Area directorate." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2014 17:32:00 -0000 At Tue, 05 Aug 2014 09:45:35 +0300, Jouni Korhonen wrote: > Just one comment below. > > - Section 3: I don't understand the rationale of this sentence (or I > > don't understand what it means): > > > > Using prefix labels, such as underscored service tags, prevents the > > use of wildcards, as constructs as _s2._s1.*.example.net. are not > > possible in the DNS, see RFC 4592 [RFC4592]. > > > > I don't understand which part of RFC 4592 is referenced here, but as > > far as I can see the RFC rather states such use of wildcards is > > acceptable (see Section 2.1.3). Perhaps what it tries to say is > > that, for example, "_s2._s1.*.example.net. cannot be used to > > synthesize an answer for _s2._s1._s0.example.net." If so, that is > > correct, but the above sentence couldn't be interpreted that way to > > me. > > The above originates from SRV RRs.. see Section 4.5. of RFC4592. In case > of SRVs the "*.example.net" is a wildcard domain name but not the owner > domain name (which would still be "_s2._s1.*.example.net" and that is > not a wildcard domain name). > > What I think should be said in the draft is an exact reference i.e. > pointing to the exact section in RFC4592 that actually explains the SRV > RR case. Ah, okay, and then I believe it's essentially the same as "(perhaps) what it tries to say" in my original comment. With this understanding I propose the following revised text: Using prefix labels, such as underscored service tags, for a specific owner name may cause a counter-intuitive effect when the owner name is a wildcard name. For example, _s2._s1.*.example.net. is not a wildcard name and cannot be used to return a synthesized answer for a query name of _s2._s1.a.example.net. See Section 4.5 of RFC4592 for more details. -- JINMEI, Tatuya From nobody Tue Aug 5 23:23:41 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: int-dir@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: int-dir@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 828EF1B2C85 for ; Tue, 5 Aug 2014 23:23:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.821 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.821 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, SPF_NEUTRAL=0.779] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hd6pMQOELwyw for ; Tue, 5 Aug 2014 23:23:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx.pao1.isc.org (mx.pao1.isc.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:0:2::2b]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 425761B2C80 for ; Tue, 5 Aug 2014 23:23:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from zmx1.isc.org (zmx1.isc.org [149.20.0.20]) by mx.pao1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 56DAF3493C9; Wed, 6 Aug 2014 06:23:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: from zmx1.isc.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zmx1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B3E90160052; Wed, 6 Aug 2014 06:33:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: from jmb.jinmei.org (99-105-57-202.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net [99.105.57.202]) by zmx1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 72AAA160047; Wed, 6 Aug 2014 06:33:50 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2014 23:23:31 -0700 Message-ID: From: JINMEI Tatuya / =?UTF-8?B?56We5piO6YGU5ZOJ?= To: "Christopher LILJENSTOLPE" In-Reply-To: References: <076231CF-0D5E-43C9-9B19-E579C14A1020@nominum.com> <25E8B6E7-3751-4A16-82A3-08B10591C076@gmail.com> <56265EDF-82D0-4174-A483-4990AFD3DB66@asgaard.org> <6A3222D7-564D-45A1-A9B2-7DAD5A7D4897@asgaard.org> User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9 (Almost Unreal) Emacs/24.3 Mule/6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO) MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI 1.14.6 - "Maruoka") Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/int-dir/dHL_LCmzxD2NdI-ZI6qV69HeAXw Cc: ralf.weber@nominum.com, Ted Lemon , "" Subject: Re: [Int-dir] Could I get a few DNS experts to review draft-faltstrom-uri? X-BeenThere: int-dir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "This list is for discussion between the members of the Internet Area directorate." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 06 Aug 2014 06:23:39 -0000 At Mon, 04 Aug 2014 15:57:52 -0700, "Christopher LILJENSTOLPE" wrote: > > This is my review comment. I've found a few possible issues that may > > have to be resolved before publication. But I'm not sure if these are > > sufficiently critical to be a blocking issue. > > Thank you Tatuya! One other point on something I've noticed while playing with the ISC BIND 9's implementation of the URI RR: the draft is not clear about whether an empty string is acceptable for the "target" field of the RDATA (in Section 4.4. and 4.5). This corner case actually causes an odd behavior of BIND 9: it successfully loads the following record: _http._web.example.com. 3600 IN URI 10 1 "" but rejects it if it comes from the wire. The inconsistent implementation behavior should be fixed anyway (I've reported it to ISC), but I suspect this is partly because the specification is not clear enough. I don't know if an empty string should be accepted (I don't see a valid reason for allowing it, but there may be some usage or we may simply want to be lenient), but, either way, the incident of BIND 9 suggests it should be explicitly described. -- JINMEI, Tatuya From nobody Sun Aug 10 22:36:23 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: int-dir@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: int-dir@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B29951A0303 for ; Sun, 10 Aug 2014 22:36:20 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.168 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.168 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-0.5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.668] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HVJe_gtq9RcX for ; Sun, 10 Aug 2014 22:36:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from shell-too.nominum.com (shell-too.nominum.com [64.89.228.229]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 05E281A0302 for ; Sun, 10 Aug 2014 22:36:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from archivist.nominum.com (archivist.nominum.com [64.89.228.108]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "*.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by shell-too.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF4D91B82AE for ; Sun, 10 Aug 2014 22:36:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from webmail.nominum.com (cas-02.win.nominum.com [64.89.228.132]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "mail.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by archivist.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 81ED553E071; Sun, 10 Aug 2014 22:36:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from MBX-03.WIN.NOMINUM.COM ([fe80::49f6:7fd1:12f3:2ecf]) by CAS-02.WIN.NOMINUM.COM ([64.89.228.132]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Sun, 10 Aug 2014 22:36:18 -0700 From: Ralf Weber To: Christopher LILJENSTOLPE Thread-Topic: [Int-dir] Could I get a few DNS experts to review draft-faltstrom-uri? Thread-Index: AQHPsDHuV1MFSRucb0WALomrfSD4ZJvBhLeAgACDmACAAGhFAIAI8LmA Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2014 05:36:17 +0000 Message-ID: <53C80EF6-119F-46E3-B7C0-6C9FAB44ED85@nominum.com> References: <076231CF-0D5E-43C9-9B19-E579C14A1020@nominum.com> <25E8B6E7-3751-4A16-82A3-08B10591C076@gmail.com> <56265EDF-82D0-4174-A483-4990AFD3DB66@asgaard.org> <6A3222D7-564D-45A1-A9B2-7DAD5A7D4897@asgaard.org> <29416E8A-C79C-4181-8297-F9ED5D5EDA04@asgaard.org> In-Reply-To: <29416E8A-C79C-4181-8297-F9ED5D5EDA04@asgaard.org> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [216.3.10.6] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <711573F9317CC14C8AC12B8775F74BAD@nominum.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/int-dir/P6wj9u9ZpAWgeOJ8U8L1l_pbiw8 Cc: Ted Lemon , "" Subject: Re: [Int-dir] Could I get a few DNS experts to review draft-faltstrom-uri? X-BeenThere: int-dir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "This list is for discussion between the members of the Internet Area directorate." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2014 05:36:20 -0000 Moin! On 05 Aug 2014, at 06:04, Christopher LILJENSTOLPE wrote: > That would be great Ralf - thx. Ok it is Monday somewhere, although not were I am now, but long flights are= ideal for document reviews and I had one today. It looks like Patrik updated the document already to include some of the co= mments made earlier, so I am not going to repeat that here.=20 In general I like the document and would like to see it move forward and mo= st importantly picked up by browser/application developers. There was one problem that I encountered while reading and digging into it = and it might be because I am old fashioned, but when I looked at the exampl= es I couldn't digest: _http._web.example.com. as an owner name didn't compute for my brain as the draft was talking about= SRV, so I was expecting: _http._tcp.example.com. of course section 4.1 mentions that there are two ways to define the ownern= ame (why two - wouldn't one be easier for application developers ?) and des= cribes them by text. Shouldn't there be a reference to the respective IANA = registries: - http://www.iana.org/assignments/service-names-port-numbers/service-names-= port-numbers.xhtml - http://www.iana.org/assignments/enum-services/enum-services.xhtml or the RFCs defining them? - RFC6335 - RFC6117 That would make it easier for application developers to use that and not ha= ve to google for the specs. Another minor thing is that you can easily shoot yourself in the foot with: _http._web.example.net. IN URI 10 1 "http://www.example.com/" _http._web.example.com. IN URI 10 1 "http://www.example.net/" so maybe there should be a section for domain administrators giving them gu= idelines like section 3.2 of the S-NAPTR RFC3958 So long -Ralf --- Ralf Weber Senior Infrastructure Architect office: +49 6446 4392053 mobile: +49 151 22659325 us: +1 650 817 5895 Nominum=20 www.nominum.com ralf.weber@nominum.com From nobody Mon Aug 11 09:08:30 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: int-dir@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: int-dir@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2EDE71A0677 for ; Mon, 11 Aug 2014 09:08:29 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.901 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PRi9FLLRcY8q for ; Mon, 11 Aug 2014 09:08:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp4.emailarray.com (smtp4.emailarray.com [65.39.216.22]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0E40B1A067C for ; Mon, 11 Aug 2014 09:08:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 13676 invoked by uid 89); 11 Aug 2014 16:08:25 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ?172.24.10.86?) (Y2RsQGFzZ2FhcmQub3JnQDE5OC4xNDcuMjI2LjY=) (POLARISLOCAL) by smtp4.emailarray.com with (DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted) SMTP; 11 Aug 2014 16:08:25 -0000 From: "Christopher LILJENSTOLPE" To: "Ralf Weber" Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2014 09:08:21 -0700 Message-ID: <3CE59614-0A31-46D2-8E79-E212DCC3A2B2@asgaard.org> In-Reply-To: <53C80EF6-119F-46E3-B7C0-6C9FAB44ED85@nominum.com> References: <076231CF-0D5E-43C9-9B19-E579C14A1020@nominum.com> <25E8B6E7-3751-4A16-82A3-08B10591C076@gmail.com> <56265EDF-82D0-4174-A483-4990AFD3DB66@asgaard.org> <6A3222D7-564D-45A1-A9B2-7DAD5A7D4897@asgaard.org> <29416E8A-C79C-4181-8297-F9ED5D5EDA04@asgaard.org> <53C80EF6-119F-46E3-B7C0-6C9FAB44ED85@nominum.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailer: MailMate (1.8r4229) X-PolarisMail-Flags: x Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/int-dir/zrFee0Nl7ljA3fz8-RMYPzG8pT8 Cc: Ted Lemon , "" Subject: Re: [Int-dir] Could I get a few DNS experts to review draft-faltstrom-uri? X-BeenThere: int-dir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "This list is for discussion between the members of the Internet Area directorate." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2014 16:08:29 -0000 Thank's Ralf. Christopher On 10 Aug 2014, at 22:36, Ralf Weber wrote: > Moin! > > On 05 Aug 2014, at 06:04, Christopher LILJENSTOLPE = > wrote: >> That would be great Ralf - thx. > Ok it is Monday somewhere, although not were I am now, but long = > flights are ideal for document reviews and I had one today. > > It looks like Patrik updated the document already to include some of = > the comments made earlier, so I am not going to repeat that here. > > In general I like the document and would like to see it move forward = > and most importantly picked up by browser/application developers. > > There was one problem that I encountered while reading and digging = > into it and it might be because I am old fashioned, but when I looked = > at the examples I couldn't digest: > _http._web.example.com. > as an owner name didn't compute for my brain as the draft was talking = > about SRV, so I was expecting: > _http._tcp.example.com. > of course section 4.1 mentions that there are two ways to define the = > ownername (why two - wouldn't one be easier for application developers = > ?) and describes them by text. Shouldn't there be a reference to the = > respective IANA registries: > - = > http://www.iana.org/assignments/service-names-port-numbers/service-name= s-port-numbers.xhtml > - http://www.iana.org/assignments/enum-services/enum-services.xhtml > or the RFCs defining them? > - RFC6335 > - RFC6117 > That would make it easier for application developers to use that and = > not have to google for the specs. > > Another minor thing is that you can easily shoot yourself in the foot = > with: > _http._web.example.net. IN URI 10 1 "http://www.example.com/" > _http._web.example.com. IN URI 10 1 "http://www.example.net/" > so maybe there should be a section for domain administrators giving = > them guidelines > like section 3.2 of the S-NAPTR RFC3958 > > So long > -Ralf > --- > Ralf Weber > Senior Infrastructure Architect > office: +49 6446 4392053 > mobile: +49 151 22659325 > us: +1 650 817 5895 > Nominum > www.nominum.com > ralf.weber@nominum.com > > > _______________________________________________ > Int-dir mailing list > Int-dir@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-dir -- =E6=9D=8E=E6=9F=AF=E7=9D=BF Avt tace, avt loqvere meliora silentio Check my PGP key here: http://www.asgaard.org/cdl/cdl.asc Current vCard here: http://www.asgaard.org/cdl/cdl.vcf