--On Sunday, July 18, 2010 09:14 +0200 Patrik Fältström
<[email protected]> wrote:
> On 17 jul 2010, at 21.39, Joe Touch wrote:
>
>> Are you suggesting a new RR instead of the SRV or in addition
>> to the SRV?
>>
>> The latter seems useful; the former begs the question of how
>> many SRV variants we would want.
>
> A new RR that is a replacement for the SRV for the cases where
> one need a URI and not only hostname+port.
>
> Otherwise, same syntax and usage as SRV (i.e. prefix of the
> owner decide the protocol and service etc).
>
> It is therefore more a replacement for SRV than replacement
> for NAPTR (that give back a list of services given a domain
> name).
>
> See draft-faltstrom-uri
Patrik, I don't know whether this is a useful contribution to
the discussion of this particular document or not, but I am
increasingly wondering whether a proliferation of RRs with
domain names or URIs as DATA is a good idea. The problem
manifests itself in several ways, but perhaps the most important
is that, for security purposes, we run into authority problems
(and hence meaningful signature ones) as soon as we get into
cross-tree pointers. Those problems are most evident with
aliases like CNAME and DNAME but, from the cross-tree pointer
perspective, MX, NAPTR, and your new proposal may be just
aliases on steroids.
One could take the position that the horse left the barn with
CNAME and MX and that more, and more complex, record types with
domain names contained in the DATA don't really change anything,
but I'm just not sure.
john
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
