Re: [bdxr] Agenda for Atlantic BDXR TC call 24 June 2020 15:00UTC

Hi Pim

Glad your following the work in the TC even if not attending meetings! :-)

We havenât started discussing the format of the hostname yet, nor whether this should be prefixed or which hashing algorithm to use. Our observation is that different implementers are implementing different algorithms (as you are also pointing out), which drives up complexity and cost for software developers and integrators. Backwards compatibility is an inevitable issue when standardizing something that hasnât been standardized before. The appropriate RFC 2119 keyword for a backwards compatible spec would probably be âSHOULDâ.

/Kenneth

From: <bdxr@lists.oasis-open.org> on behalf of Pim van der Eijk <pvde@sonnenglanz.net>
Date: Wednesday, June 24, 2020 at 10:22 AM
To: "bdxr@lists.oasis-open.org" <bdxr@lists.oasis-open.org>
Subject: Re: [bdxr] Agenda for Atlantic BDXR TC call 24 June 2020 15:00UTC

Hello,

Not active in this TC for a while but the following caught my eye:

On 24-06-2020 09:51, Kenneth Bengtsson wrote:

Discussed that the hostname to look up the NAPTR record (commonly done as âB-[MD5 hash of participant ID]â) should be standardized.

I disagree that this needs standardization if only because it would unnecessarily break compatibility for existing users, e.g. eDelivery BDXL, which dropped the addition of the "B-" prefix (redundant as not needed for DNS records of this type and potentially problematic for some DNS server backends) and uses a different hashing algorithm.

Thanks,

Pim

bdxr message