Editor's note:  These minutes have not been edited.


Attached are the text minutes for the URN BOF in Montreal.

The electronic versions of the presentation slides can be found at:

Session slides:
ftp://ftp.bunyip.com/research/ietf/urn-bof/chairslides.ps

Framework presentation slides:
ftp://ftp.bunyip.com/research/ietf/urn-bof/framewk.ppt

NAPTR presentation slides:
ftp://ftp.bunyip.com/research/ietf/urn-bof/naptr.ppt

Sollins/Girod presentation slides:
ftp://ftp.bunyip.com/research/ietf/urn-bof/solgir.ppt


Let me know if there are any problems.

Thanks!
Leslie.

================================


Uniform Resource Names (URN) BOF

CURRENT MEETING REPORT

Reported by Dirk van Gulik, Joint Research Centre of the European
Communities, and Leslie Daigle, Bunyip Information Systems Inc.

---------------------------------------- Purpose of the BOF
----------------------------------------

This BOF was to report on the URN work that has been carried out
since the Dallas IETF meeting in December, 1995. Three Internet-Drafts
had been prepared that describe some of this work (see below).

Given that this work represents significant progress towards addressing
many of the URN requirements, a possible plan was outlined for
finalizing this work and determine if there is consensus for continuing it
within the context of the IETF.

Related Internet-Drafts:

draft-daigle-urnframework-00.txt
draft-daniel-naptr-01.txt
draft-girod-urn-res-require_00.txt


---------------------------------------- Agenda
----------------------------------------

Presentations:

Welcome, context
Presentation of framework document
Presentation of the NAPTR document (draft-ietf-daniel-naptr-01.txt)

Forward motion:

Next steps -- proposed charter for a WG . Presentation of the
Girod/Sollins paper -- suggestions for
improvements to the framework/NAPTR stuff . Discussion of other
proposed improvements for the current proposals. . Closure on WG
charter plan


---------------------------------------- Notes
----------------------------------------

The attached slides carry the details of individual presentations.

1. Welcome: Leslie Daigle

From consensus in the room, an new mailing list will be set up for this
phase of URN discussions:

urn-ietf[-request]@bunyip.com

This segment included a short introduction and expose on the scope of
the current URN framework (the proposal), and the NATPR draft (a
proposed implementation of one of the components). In particular: what
URNs are not going to solve.

It was noted that the Framework document acknowledgements section
was incomplete, as Bill Arms's name was not listed -- an unfortunate
editorial mistake.


2. Framework Document: Patrik Faltstrom

This presentation outlined the proposed framework -- as it existed from
the Dallas BOF and a few refinements since. There were some questions
about exact NA extraction were deferred to the NAPTR discussion.
There were also questions regarding choices for this specific solution: in
particular whether the top-level registry should see the full URN
(which would make some optimization and efficiency possible). It was
pointed out that in the light of various privacy/denial-of-service
attacks as well as efficiency or caching that this was considered but not
selected.

3. NAPTR: Ron Daniel

See draft -- just one particular way of implementing the registries of
the framework. Some points were unclear in terms of who changes
which NAPTR/SRV record. Regarding special port/protocol
combinations, this is, or should be in the SRV draft. If not, in the
interest of caching? This should be added to the NAPTR in some way?
There were questions as to whether 'executing' a regex is not a security
problem. The three required DNS lookups were questioned, given
historic proposals. The current proposal, however, does offer more
functionality, records can be cashed more effectively and the SRV
record allows for more optimizations when combined with shortcuts in
DNS. It is noted that security is an issue and thread models are to be
identified and which can be addressed.


4. Next Steps: Leslie Daigle

Given the proposal on the table (as outlined in the earlier
presentations), a draft Working Group charter was floated, to see if
there was consensus that a group could be formed to do useful work (see
slides for details).

With regard to the specific charter and proposed milestones, there
were Concerns that the one resolution scheme and one name space as
proposed is too little; but a single year working group is limited in
scope. Proof that grandfathering in a single name space is needed (e.g.,
FPI's or IS?Ns) and of course, examples of other N2L, etc resolutions,
such as cri or enterprise numbering (in another paper).

Furthermore, a separate URN syntax document is needed. It was stated
that the framework document will refer to the existing URN
requirements RFC, but it will not replace it.

The operational impact on DNS can be serious and should be considered
within this working group. However a complete analysis belongs to the
SRV and DNS communities as well. However during design these issues
have been taken into account and it is expected that the type of load
introduced should be similar and match well with current
optimizations.


5. Improvements: Karen Sollins, Lewis Girod

This presentation kicked of the constructive criticism of the NAPTR
proposal. The related Internet-Draft
(draft-girod-urn-res-require_00.txt) was written before the other two
Internet-Drafts were circulating publicly, so this presentation focused
on issues that are still open after integrating all material.

A compulsory gatewaying, such as a HTTP client defaulting to say
HTTP-proxy, could be useful for requiring minimal changes when the
URN infrastructure changes, but it is difficult to force vendors to do so.
Also firewalls and DNS are an issue. Some design issues around DNS
were raised; the NAPTR use might be at odds with the bulk security
signing model proposed in DNSSEC. An important clarification, which
might have to be more emphasized in the draft, is that the rewrite rule
applies to the original URN, the output of one rule is not used as the
input for another rule. It was questioned whether this kind of a regular
expression rewrite rule is enough to accommodate all needs; but it seems
to give enough control over granularity to implement most management
systems foreseen by the designers. Some of the more complicated steps
might have to be done by referrals of the final resolving server.
However in the light of the requirements they are felt as needed.
Whether the original requirements were good is another question --
should that document be re-written?


6. Discussion

It seems that most problems are deferred to the resolution protocols. It
is therefore important to get the Framework document finished quickly.
There is a lot of infrastructure to build. The framework document should
borrow some of the flesh from the Girod/Sollins draft; it gives more
compelling reasons of why URNs are a Good Thing.


7. Closure WG Charter plan

There was consensus in the room that this proposal represents a
reasonable path to tackle the URN problem. The charter will be
firmed up and proposed to the IESG.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Leslie Daigle
"Learn and live."       Vice President, Research
Bunyip Information Systems
-- ThinkingCat  (514) 875-8611
[email protected]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You are viewing proxied material from ftp.icm.edu.pl. The copyright of proxied material belongs to its original authors. Any comments or complaints in relation to proxied material should be directed to the original authors of the content concerned. Please see the disclaimer for more details.