My feedback to Andrew when he presented this to me was that: - In general I am nervous of moving HTTP header attributes into the DNS, as it might create inconsistencies when for example the data in DNS do not match what is in the HTTP header, and we already have a content-negotiation mechanism in HTTP - Given experience with length of URI / text fields in DNS, I would have had the encoding of RDATA as "flag" "flag" "flag" "uri" (while being nervous over the size restrictions of the URI...which is the reason in URI the uri is all of RDATA except the weight and priority). - I am also nervous over the size of the RRSet, i.e. same issue I see with NAPTR, and the reason why I added the prefix (like SRV) to the URI RR Patrik > On 27 feb 2015, at 07:49, Mark Nottingham <mnot@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Cool! Some quick feedback: > > * you should explicitly accommodate target attributes (i.e., extension fields) > * 'rev' was only included in 5988 for backwards compatibility with some fairly esoteric use cases; don't think it's necessary or good here. > * you need to specify how to determine the context of the link (using RFC5988 terminology). > > Cheers, > > >> On 27 Feb 2015, at 3:25 am, Andrew Newton <andy@xxxxxx> wrote: >> >> >> >> On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 2:12 AM, Mark Nottingham <mnot@xxxxxxxx> wrote: >> The document effectively gives a "type" for the URI by associating a value from the ENUM service registry. While that makes sense from the standpoint of ENUM, if this mechanism is truly generic to *all* URIs, it seems to me that it'd be much more sensible to use the typing system already in place for URIs -- link relations <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5988>. >> >> Such a good idea that there is already a draft with just such an approach: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-newton-link-rr/ >> >> -andy > > -- > Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/ >
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail