Subject: Re: nsid last call (fwd)

From: Edward Lewis <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2006 23:11:37 -0400

At 17:54 -0400 6/28/06, Dean Anderson wrote:
>Can we have a post WGLC draft with the following changes:
>
>Use this wording:
>
>  3.1.  The NSID Payload
>
>      The syntax and semantics of the content of the NSID option is
>      deliberately left outside the scope of this specification. It is
>      the prerogative of the server administrator to choose the NSID
>      content as long as the content is unique to each anycast instance
>      so that a remote user is able to match the NSID to the server
>      instance over a series of queries. The NSID can be opaque and
>      encoded such that it can be decoded by the server adminstrator to
>      provide more information. This section describe some of the kinds
>      of data that server administrators might choose to provide as the
>      content of the NSID option, and explains the reasoning behind
>      choosing a simple opaque byte string.

1) How does a requirement for uniqueness improve interoperability?

2) How do you enforce this, i.e., how can you detect the difference 
between one instance relying with 2 different strings and two 
instances replying with one string each?

The requirement for uniqueness is not related to interoperability and 
is not testable.  For those reasons, I think it would be dropped.

>
>Delete this from Section 3.1:
>
>    o  It could be some sort of dynamicly generated identifier so that
>       only the name server operator could tell whether or not any two
>       queries had been answered by the same server.

IMHO, I don't care about dropping this because I don't think the 
draft really ought to even bother suggesting particular semantics of 
the opaque string.  I say that from seeing past RFCs that got in hot 
water for being "too helpful."

-- 
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Edward Lewis                                                +1-571-434-5468
NeuStar

Soccer/Futbol. IPv6.  Both have lots of 1's and 0's and have a hard time
catching on in North America.

That tournament in Germany.  What's all the fuss?  (Get it? "fuss?")

--
to unsubscribe send a message to [email-masked] with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/>

---

From: "Olaf M. Kolkman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2006 09:49:02 +0200

> Can we have a post WGLC draft with the following changes:

Hello Dean,

I'm sorry to say, we can not have a post WGLC.

Since I determined consensus the work has moved out of the working  
group and is now in the hands of the IESG. I consider this issue closed.

Kind regards,

--Olaf

-----------------------------------------------------------
Olaf M. Kolkman
NLnet Labs
http://www.nlnetlabs.nl/

---

From: Mark Townsley <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2006 13:18:08 -0400

> group and is now in the hands of the IESG. I consider this issue closed.
Amy has already initiated the IETF LC at our request. Dean, can your 
comments be addressed as IETF LC comments?

Thanks,

- Mark

---

From: Dean Anderson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2006 14:15:39 -0400 (EDT)

Then I strongly object to his document, as it is now.

		--Dean

-- 
Av8 Internet   Prepared to pay a premium for better service?
www.av8.net         faster, more reliable, better service
617 344 9000