Re: DNS-EPD Updates [was Re: New Internet-Draft: DNS-Endpoint Discovery (http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-snell-dnsepd-00.txt)]

[Paul Vixie <paul@vix.com>]

> > 1. Rename the XML RR to EPX or "Endpoint Extension" RR.
> 
> Since XML is self-describing, why not leave it as a general XML RR?

because the rrtype has to not only describe the rdata format, but also
the use to which it will be put.  there was some thought in early dns
that the rrtype would describe the rdata and the rrclass would describe
the use; however, rrclass ended up as a zone qualifier, and so the only
remaining ways to distinguish use cases is to make a subdomain (as was
done in the SRV RR) or have more than one rrtype describe the same format
of rdata but with different uses (MX and RP come to mind here.)  there
might be any number of later rrtypes whose rdata is self-describing XML,
but they may be used differently than this one.

i therefore agree with the proposal to call this EPX rather than XML.

> However, I still can't see why any of this data belongs in the DNS. 
> Since one needs to know a domain name to fetch this data, I can't see 
> why you wouldn't allocate a port number and serve the XML over TCP on 
> that port. In the WG meeting you said this was because DNS is a defined 
> protocol, but I can't find that a compelling argument - HTTP would seem 
> a far better protocol for serving this data.

i don't think there's a connectionless XML bearer in common use.  http/tcp
is a harsh prescription for some real time or embedded applications i can
think of, both at the server end and the client end.  xml over dns makes
perfect sense to me.

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