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

[Dave Crocker <[e-mail]>]

On 8/9/2017 7:38 PM, Adam Roach wrote:
> What I do know is that I can ask for an RR of type FOO for 
> something.example.com and get a response with an answer, and I can ask 
> for an RR of type BAR for something.example.com, and get a response with 
> no answers. I've internalized this as FOO and BAR being different things 
> -- different scopes, effectively -- but (based on your and John Levine's 
> and Mark Andrew's responses) clearly have an incorrect mental model of 
> what's considered "namespaces," at least as compared to people who deal 
> with DNS in more detail.


Ahh, interesting.  This might point to a need for some additional 
explanatory (and maybe even denotational) text in the draft.  (I work 
from the theory that confusion in one serious reader is likely an 
indicator that others will suffer the same fate.)

So:

      Scope is meant as a static property, not one dependent on the 
nature of the query.  It is an artifact of the DNS name.

Hence, some.example.com defines the scope, independent of any RR under it.

And in case it's relevant to add this:

      The namespace of the proposed registry covers all node names that 
begin with an underscore and are the 'highest' occurrence of an 
underscore name.

d/
-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net