<snipping a lot of text...>
On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 9:16 AM, John C Klensin <john-ietf(_at_)jck(_dot_)com>
wrote:
If (as I believe to be the case) the main
argument for this URI RR is that it is less problematic than
NAPTR, S-NAPTR, U-NAPTR, and (maybe) SRV, then this document
should probably include a plan about phasing some of those, or
at least some instances of some of those, out.
I was unaware that there was a need for only one way to do this. It seems
to me that the multiple methods could co-exist without collision. While I
agree with your observations about these methods, I do not like the idea of
the IETF mandating single solutions unnecessarily (in its specifications).
If, instead,
these five (or fewer, see below) types of potentially-iterative
indirect references are to exist in parallel, it becomes
reasonable to ask that a standards-track document explain how
many more of them are expected or why we should assume this one
is the last.
I'm confused. How can we know a better idea will come along until it has
actually surfaced?
While multiple ways to do the
same thing are sometimes an advantage, they are more often a
source of confusion (and, again, potential bad implementation
behavior and attack vectors). It would be _really_ good to do
some architectural work that would lead to both design and
applicability statements, rather than continuing to add more of
them without an obvious plan.
I agree with a lot of things you have written here. But I'm wary of any
effort regarding a grand unifying architecture, if that is where such an
effort takes us... especially given the recent discussions on URIs/URNs.
That said, there may be room for some discussion here as there are other
ideas in this space (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-newton-link-rr/
).
-andy