Subject: Working Group -- work!

From: Leslie Daigle <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 12:48:12 -0400

Howdy,

So, here we are looking to wrap up our last documents and finish
the working group.

To refresh people's memory of where we're at, just over a year
ago, we submitted

Assignment Procedures for the URI Resolution using DNS (RFC2168)
Resolution of Uniform Resource Identifiers using the Domain Name System
The Naming Authority Pointer (NAPTR) DNS Resource Record

to the IESG to be put forward as RFCs (as BCP, Standard, and Standard,
respectively).  Such being the nature of IESG overload, it took
quite a few months before they got the necessary scrutiny, which
produced some useful suggested improvements. Such being the
nature of the universe at large, in the meantime other groups started
using bits of it (e.g., NAPTR) in very appropriate, but non-UR{N|I}
ways (e.g., ENUM).

This lead to a thought that the latter 2 documents, which are meant
to update and replace RFC2168, could be better expressed as 3
documents, separating out the generically-useful stuff from the
UR{N|I}-specific stuff so that it will be clearer how other apps
can use NAPTR in a consistent fashion.  (The first will be republished
as a revised document, should hit the I-D editor today).

Ultimately, it should also make it clearer how URN resolution can
move beyond DNS-based resolution, which is something we've maintained
was interesting/useful/necessary in the medium-to-long term.

Michael Mealling has put together some proposed documents, based
on that split.  They will soon hit the I-D archives (titles below),
and the split is encapsulated as follows:

        draft-ietf-urn-ddds-00.txt
                = the generic concept of a delegated hierarchy
                  for resolution

        draft-ietf-urn-dns-ddds-database-00.txt
                = NAPTR -- i.e., how to use DNS to implement an
                  instance of the above

        draft-ietf-urn-uri-res-ddds-00.txt
                = using the NAPTR-based "DDDS" for URN and URI
                  resolution

Michael will be forwarding the documents to the list with his own
remarks, but there is a larger question that I need answered as WG
chair.  Essentially, our goal as a WG is to fulfill our charter and
wind up.  The argument can be made that this goes beyond our mandate.
The counterargument can be made that it will allow us to finish
our work in a more complete fashion.  I'd like to hear people's
thoughts once they've read the documents in that light.

Consequences:
        . if we take it on, I'll be pushing for a tight timeline,
          so that this WG does wind up

        . if we don't take it on, we can consider pushing forward
          with simple revisions to the existing drafts

My personal opinion is that this is work in the right direction,
that it should move forward anyway, that it's close enough to what
we've done that it shouldn't be too much of a stretch, and that it
will benefit from the input of the whole WG (i.e., why I'd rather
this didn't get put to Michael to pursue as a personal effort).
But, YMMV, and I'd like to hear either way.

Over to you, Michael...

Leslie.

--

-------------------------------------------------------------------
"My body obeys Aristotelian laws of physics."
   -- ThinkingCat

Leslie Daigle
[email-masked]
-------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Michael Mealling <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 13:04:15 -0400

> Over to you, Michael...

Thanks! (I get the feeling I'm announcing a football game...)

Anyway, one very important point is that nothing technical changes
with these documents (other than using the urn.arpa and uri.arpa domains).
The only differences have to do with the requirements for what information
you need in order to come up with your own rule database or application.

One subtle point is that these documents make it clear that if you use
the NAPTR record then you must adhere to the delegation systems rules.
There have been attempts at using NAPTR for things with no relation
at all delegation rules. This change makes it clear that you can't
use NAPTR as a RR just to carry around three strings and a domain-name.

I'll be forwarding these documents to the list separately. As Leslie
has said, I expect that since there are no technical changes that
at most we might have some word smithing to do around some sections.
Thus we should be able to have these done in a very short timeframe (weeks?).

-MM

--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Mealling        |      Vote Libertarian!       | www.rwhois.net/michael
Sr. Research Engineer   |   www.ga.lp.org/gwinnett     | ICQ#:         14198821
Network Solutions       |          www.lp.org          |  [email-masked]