Subject: Re: [Mipshop] AD review of draft-ietf-mipshop-mos-dns-discovery

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2008 20:57:08 +0200

Hi,

The S-NAPTR spec is just a subset of NAPTR. I do not really see the
added value of rewriting the draft to use S-NAPTR. Please see more
inline:

  >-----Original Message-----
  >From: ext Jari Arkko [mailto:[email-masked]]
  >Sent: Sunday, October 19, 2008 9:47 PM
  >To: [email-masked]; Mipshop;
Bajko
  >Gabor (Nokia-CIC/MtView)
  >Subject: Re: AD review of draft-ietf-mipshop-mos-dns-discovery
  >
  >A follow-up on the NAPTR issues. I had some misgivings about the way
  >NAPTR is used here, and after a very quick discussion with some DNS
  >experts, it seems that I have to ask this:
  >
  >1) Why aren't you using S-NAPTR (RFC 3958)?
  >
  >2) If you define a direct DDDS definition on top of NAPTR, you should
  >really do everything that is required in RFC 3401 Section 4, and I
don't
  >think you are.

I thought I did. I read through it once again, but I couldn't find
anything missing.

  >3) I do not understand the way that the IANA registrations have been
  >made. Since several services may exist in the same domain, how do we
  >ensure that MIPSHOP services and some other services do not collide?
  >Note that with S-NAPTR this would have been easy.

IANA would need to create a registry for 'MIH Service parameters', and
include the proposed Service Fields to Transport Protocol mapping table
in there.

  >I would recommend that the authors use RFC 3958 instead and change
the
  >relevant parts of the specification to switch to that, including the
  >IANA registration.

Is there a specific problem keeping it as it is?

  >But I have to confess that I am not at all a NAPTR expert myself. I
  >looked at the RFCs in question for the first time few days ago. If
you
  >think what I am suggesting is wrong, please say so and we can talk
about
  >it. If you don't think you can do the above change on your own, also
ask
  >for help -- I can arrange experts that you could talk to about it.

I do not tink yur suggestion is wrong, but I think the current text in
the draft is a viable alternative to it.

- Gabor

  >Jari

_______________________________________________
Mipshop mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mipshop