Subject: Fwd: draft-ietf-dnsext-apl-rr-01.txt

From: Olafur Gudmundsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 23:23:08 -0500

As there has been no reaction (one way or the other) to the message
below, is it safe to assume that the members of this working group
do not care if this document is withdrawn from consideration as it has
no practical use defined ?

         Olafur

PS: if there is no reaction to this message, in the next 7 days.
Randy and I will interpret that as "YES Withdraw the document".

>To: namedroppers <[email-masked]>
>Subject: draft-ietf-dnsext-apl-rr-01.txt
>Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2000 11:54:44 -0400
>From: Thomas Narten <[email-masked]>
>Sender: [email-masked]
>
>The IESG discussed this ID recently and a meta issue was discussed
>that I think the WG should think about. In particular:
>
> >    The specification of particular application scenarios is out of the
> >    scope of this document.
>
>I.e, this ID defines an RR for which no usage has been specified, and
>for which in the future, multiple incompatable usages might be
>specified.
>
>It seems to me that the semantics of an RR should be well-defined and
>uniformly interpreted by clients. If they are not, one runs the risk
>that different clients will query for the same RR (but for different
>reasons) and get unexpected results. This is particularly true if two
>logically different uses make use of the same RR. An administrator
>might define RRs with one usage in mind, but those RRs are then also
>queried by other applications that interpret the meaning of that RR
>differently than intended by the owner. Wrong things can happen as a
>result. Thus, even in cases where the raw format of an RR might be
>correct for multiple different uses, it might be better to define
>multiple different RRs each having the same syntax, but (possibly)
>different semantics and (possibly) different uses.
>
>I note that semantics/usage of the Negation Flag is explicitely not
>defined in this document, so the RR seems underspecified.
>
>As an example, consider TXT records. You can put lots of things in
>them, but many consider it bad form to do so precisely because the TXT
>RR one gets back may have nothing to do with the usage the client is
>expecting.
>
>To summarize, I wonder if:
>
>1) This document should be published at all, without a specific usage
>    associated with it for the reasons discussed above.
>
>2) Even if the document is published, making it a PS seems wrong,
>    without a specific usage documented along with it that clearly
>    defines the semantics and intended usage.
>
>What does the WG think about this?
>
>Minor comments:
>
> > 4. APL RDATA format
> >
> >    The RDATA section consists of zero or more strings (<apstring>) of
> >    the form
>
>Is the "string" description correct? The RDATA actually consists if
>fixed length fields such as a prefix, a bit, etc.
>
> >   ftp://ftp.iana.org/in-notes/iana/assignments/address-family-numbers.
>
>The IANA requests that all references to numbers be via:
>
>http://www.iana.org/numbers.html
>
>Thomas

to unsubscribe send a message to [email-masked] with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.