ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Last Call: <draft-faltstrom-uri-10.txt> (The Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) DNS Resource Record) to Proposed Standard

2015-02-23 10:06:31
All,


Due to a mistake from my side, the new version I have been hacking in based on 
comments coming back during the still open last call was posted the other day. 
I am sorry for that and my apologies for people being confused.

It was my intention "only" to describe here what I have found so far in 
comments, so let me summarize in no specific order:

- It is confusing to have a full section called "examples" and then only have 
one example.

- The registries that existed when the draft was first posted was (only) the 
ENUM registry, while now we also have a registry for SRV prefixes, and this 
draft can and should reference both

- The example(s) given should because the draft reference a registry use actual 
values that are registered.

- As no web browser have implemented lookup for the URI RRType (as far as I 
know), the example should not be using "homepage" as an example, but something 
else

- Minor clarifications that mostly are editorial

Some of these, but not all, are already implemented in the prematurely posted 
version -11 which should not have been posted.

Once again, my apologies. Thanks to Eliot, Mark, Suzanne and Pete for helping 
me.

   Patrik

On 29 jan 2015, at 08:05, Patrik Fältström <paf(_at_)netnod(_dot_)se> wrote:




On 29 jan 2015, at 07:59, Eliot Lear <lear(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com> wrote:

Hi Patrik,

On this one point:


On 1/28/15 9:46 AM, Patrik Fältström wrote:

The RRType is registered and can not be changed.

That said, what can be referred to is a "better" registry for services. 
IETF do not have a registry for services for SRV. If IETF did, then I would 
have referenced that registry. I think it is "stupid" to create a new 
registry.

Stupid or not, it exists.  Go to [1] and select "Service name only".
RFC 6335 updated RFC 2782 on this point[2].

Ok, I have been sleeping by the wheel!

Mea culpa.

Let me come back on this.

  Patrik


Eliot

[1] http://www.iana.org/form/ports-services
[2] http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6335


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail