Subject: [dns-dir] draft-daboo-srv-caldav

From: Ralph Droms <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2010 20:49:43 +0200

Has anyone on the directorate reviewed draft-daboo-srv-caldav-08?

- Ralph

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2010 15:00:14 -0400

> Has anyone on the directorate reviewed draft-daboo-srv-caldav-08?

I have not.  It was on my TODO but hasn't made it to the top yet (and
likely won't this week).

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]
Shinkuro, Inc.

---

From: Ralph Droms <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2010 21:07:29 +0200

Hm.  It's on the agenda for discussion during tomorrow's IESG telechat.

I've read it and I think the DNS SRV usages are OK; a second opinion wouldn't hurt if someone has a chance to make a quick review before noon EDT tomorrow.

- Ralph

On Sep 8, 2010, at 9:00 PM 9/8/10, Andrew Sullivan wrote:

> _______________________________________________
> dns-dir mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-dir

---

From: Patrik Fältström <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2010 21:15:41 +0200

Yes, I did.

I have on the IETF list expressed that I do not like the naming scheme they have chosen (using SRV records plus a "well known path in HTTP", but I also accept being overruled as better ways of solving the same kind of problem is not known in the IETF.

   Patrik

---

From: Ralph Droms <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2010 21:16:57 +0200

Thanks, Patrik...

- Ralph

---

From: Ralph Droms <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2010 21:21:58 +0200

I found the thread you refer to; thanks, again...

- Ralph

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2010 15:25:13 -0400

> I've read it and I think the DNS SRV usages are OK; a second opinion wouldn't hurt if someone has a chance to make a quick review before noon EDT tomorrow.

Ok, I had a quick skim.  It'd be nice if someone else had a look too,
because I did this while waiting for an awk script to finish.

Without wanting to dredge up a lot of history, the issue is partly
that the document depends on I-D.cheshire-dnsext-dns-sd, which draft
has been waiting for an update for, according to the tracker, 166
days.  I personally wish that draft hadn't used TXT records, but too
late and too bad and so sad.  The mechanism clearly works and is
widely deployed, so I think it ought to be published.  But I believe
there have been people who feel otherwise.

I sorta hate the RFC 5785 approach, but it's available and apparently
works.

So, while I think the approach taken by this draft could have been
cleaner and nicer in some alternate universe, in the universe we're
actually in I think it's not harmful.

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]
Shinkuro, Inc.

---

From: Patrik Fältström <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2010 21:28:03 +0200

> actually in I think it's not harmful.

Correct, it is not harmful. I want them to "stay in the IETF" (do not scare them away). They have a real problem to solve. Yes, the solution might be a hack, but it is possible to change in the future when we have more better ideas.

Ship it!

   Patrik