The Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) DNS Resource Record
draft-faltstrom-uri-14

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 13 and is now closed.

(Barry Leiba; former steering group member) (was Discuss) Yes

Yes (2015-03-25)
No email
send info
Version -14 addresses all my comments; thanks very much.

(Pete Resnick; former steering group member) Yes

Yes ( for -13)
No email
send info

(Adrian Farrel; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2015-03-09 for -13)
No email
send info
You don't need to expand DNS and URI as they are well known.

On the other hand, you do need to expand:
DDDS
NAPTR                           

---

I am uneasy with your use of 2119 language in this document...


The use of "MUST" in section 2 is inappropriate. It would be better to
say "must" and even better to say "need to". And the use of "MUST NOT"
would read better as "is not".



Since this is an Informational document, the 2119 language in 4.2 is 
out of place.  Are you defining new procedures, quoting procedures
documented elsewhere, or making commentary? I think you could write...

   The priority of the target URI in this RR.  Its range is 0-65535.  A
   client attempts to contact the URI with the lowest-numbered priority
   it can reach; URIs with the same priority are tried in the order 
   defined by the weight field.



Section 4.4's use of "MUST" is more debatable. 

   The Target MUST NOT be empty ("").

Where does this rule come from and why? Is it a specific case of an
existing rule, or are you defining something new? 


And so on...

(Alia Atlas; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -13)
No email
send info

(Benoît Claise; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -13)
No email
send info

(Brian Haberman; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -13)
No email
send info

(Jari Arkko; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -13)
No email
send info

(Joel Jaeggli; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -13)
No email
send info

(Kathleen Moriarty; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2015-03-10 for -13)
No email
send info
This looks fine, I just found a typo in the security considerations section:

    will effectlyely lead to a downgrade attack.
s/effectlyely/effectively/

(Martin Stiemerling; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -13)
No email
send info

(Richard Barnes; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -13)
No email
send info

(Spencer Dawkins; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -13)
No email
send info

(Stephen Farrell; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2015-03-11 for -13)
No email
send info
- General: Would it be ok or not of if _ftp._tcp had a value
with an sftp URI?  Could you state any rules for a) how
secure vs. insecure should be handled in the QNAME and b) if
there are security match/mismatch expectations between the
QNAME and the value of the RR?  

- s2: This reminds me of .well-known URIs that re-direct. I
know we're not focusing on the web though (but you did bring
it up) but the same effect for http can now be achieved that
way and it might be good to note

- 4.1: "DNS labels that occur in nature" - I love it:-)

- 5.1: I wondered what sftp would be here? would it be
_sftp._tcp or _ftp._ssh or _ftp._ssh._tcp or what?

(Ted Lemon; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -13)
No email
send info