Re: [art] draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf

[Adam Roach <[e-mail]>]

On 7/28/17 1:30 PM, John Levine wrote:
>> ... and then create two additional sub-tables (one for "_tcp"
>> and one for "_udp"), which register all the "_service" types that can
>> appear under these two "_proto" types
> Please, no.  That registry has existed for decades and has upward of
> 10,000 entries.  See RFC 6335 and:
>
>   https://www.iana.org/assignments/service-names-port-numbers/service-names-port-numbers.xhtml
>
> I agree that service names that appear in the registry do not belong in attrleaf.


Ah, yes. I'd missed that the intention of RFC2782 was to allow SRV 
records to be instantly usable for all registered services, rather than 
having each service defining specific additional procedures for SRV 
resolution. (For example, RFC3263 defines some specific rules around 
handling priorities across different transports, which goes beyond the 
handling described by RFC2782). On review, your interpretation appears 
to be correct.

In that case, it would appear that the main action here would be to 
clean up the SRV entries in Table 1 -- by my understanding, the way 
RFC2782 is written, the only registered SRV entries in the registry this 
document establishes should consist of some strict subset of 
<https://www.iana.org/assignments/protocol-numbers/protocol-numbers.xml>.

/a