[dnsext] Re: [port-srv-reg] New Version Notification for draft-gudmundsson-dnsext-srv-clarify-00

[Joe Touch <[e-mail]>]

Hi, Alfred,

Alfred ? wrote:
...
> Please do not neglect the criticism spelled out repeatedly for
> draft-ietf-tsvwg-iana-ports but rejected by your team.  This
> draft tries to accommodate the restrictions imposed by that memo.
> Yet, to be useful for aligning previous RFCs now deemed non-
> conformant with these rules and recent/ongoing work specifically
> calling for multi-label hierarchical Service Prefixes, this
> draft needs to show a uniform path that can be recommended
> to the authors / WGs where these RFCs are originating from.
> 
> Thus, as a replacement mechanism for specifications using
> Service Prefixes with non-transport protocol Protocol Labels
> and/or more than two labels, the non-normative extension
> mechanism proposed is an essential part of this memo.
> 
> Unless the restrictions imposed by draft-ietf-tsvwg-iana-ports
> on the lenght of Service Names and the one-servie-name-per-
> application rule are being relaxed substantially, this extension
> mechanism will remain in this document.

I don't understand this position. Sec 5 of that doc allows aliases. The only
constraint is that one be designated primary so that reverse lookups can
determine when aliasing occurs.

draft-ietf-tsvwg-iana-ports is updating the length of service names. Having this
document concurrently undermine that update, especially in a "non-normative"
appendix seems inconsistent at best.

I'd expect that a substantive change to the specification of SRV names - i.e.,
introducing a hierarchical namespace - would require a standards-track document
whose main body focused on the changes proposed, and that they need to be
coordinated with draft-ietf-tsvwg-iana-ports.

Can you clarify?

Joe