IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com> Fri, 28 July 2017 18:30 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@taugh.com>
X-Original-To: art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F7FB132073 for <art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 28 Jul 2017 11:30:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 29gMM6IR63JO for <art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 28 Jul 2017 11:30:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from miucha.iecc.com (w6.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::4945:4343]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4A76A13206C for <art@ietf.org>; Fri, 28 Jul 2017 11:30:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 90038 invoked from network); 28 Jul 2017 18:30:22 -0000
Received: from unknown (64.57.183.18) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 28 Jul 2017 18:30:22 -0000
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2017 18:30:00 -0000
Message-ID: <20170728183000.26378.qmail@ary.lan>
From: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
To: art@ietf.org
Cc: adam@nostrum.com
In-Reply-To: <9fc7ff7d-9f5a-ce2b-9fb1-e9b1c9eb0108@nostrum.com>
Organization:
X-Headerized: yes
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/art/RS6-_U5zi6ELdEdpHo6zV9TIaVc>
Subject: Re: [art] draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf
X-BeenThere: art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Applications and Real-Time Area Discussion <art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/art>, <mailto:art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/art/>
List-Post: <mailto:art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/art>, <mailto:art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2017 18:30:26 -0000

In article <9fc7ff7d-9f5a-ce2b-9fb1-e9b1c9eb0108@nostrum.com> you write:
>So, what I *think* this document probably wants to do is define a 
>top-level registry containing things like "_tcp", "_udp", and 
>"_domainkey", ...

Right, that's part of what this registry is.  The protocol names were casually
mentioned in RFC 2782, and a few more have been added along the way,
but have never been put in a registry other than implicitly in a column
in the service name registry.

I suggested a while ago that the table needs another column to say
what kinds of subnames are allowed if it's names out of another
registry.

> ... 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.

R's,
John

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email