ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [DNSOP] Minor editorial change to draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps

2017-07-04 21:24:14
On 5 July 2017 at 10:02, Mark Andrews <marka(_at_)isc(_dot_)org> wrote:

Who owns a name is a different question to what machines serve the
<name,type,class> tuple and how do you reach those machines.  There
is absolutely no reason why the zones <name,IN> and <name,CLASS56>
need to be served by the same machines.  There is a argument for
them both being under control of the same people.

Mark


Hi, I'm jumping in at a random time with a possibly dumb question, but
the talk of <name,type> and <name,type,class> tuples got me wondering
about representation in general, and URLs in particular.

RFCs 3986 and 7230 say[*] that every 'host' in a HTTP URL that looks
like a DNS name is a DNS name, and that they have to be resolved to IP
addresses if you want to fetch them, but they don't talk meaningfully
about how to do that resolution. Given that we always assume class=IN
(not to mention type=A|AAAA via happy eyeballs), how would we go about
practically presenting an alternative class in things like URLs?
(Registering a new "alt-http" URL scheme doesn't strike me as a great
idea.)

Because it's all well and good setting up your own .org hierarchy
under class=FOO or whatever, but there's not much point if you can't
send people to www.not-icann.org using it. Unless you don't want to
expose your new hierarchy to the web ...?

Cheers


[*] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3986#section-3.2.2 :

   """A registered name intended for lookup in the DNS uses the syntax
   defined in Section 3.5 of [RFC1034] and Section 2.1 of [RFC1123]."""

I read that as: "if it matches RFC1034 (and isn't overridden by the
specific URI scheme's rules) it's a DNS name."  It could be read the
other way, but that just adds more assumptions.

-- 
  Matthew Kerwin
  http://matthew.kerwin.net.au/