Re: [dnsext] WGLC: RFC6195bis IANA guidance

Olafur,

I have reviewed draft-ietf-dnsext-rfc6195bis-02 and offer the
following observations:

[3.1 paragraph 4]
and [3.2 paragraph 4]

Regexes:

                         [A-Z][A-Z0-9\-]*[A-Z0-9]

                        (TYPE|CLASS)(0|[1-9][0-9]*)

could be simplified to:

                         [A-Z][A-Z0-9]*

                        (TYPE|CLASS)[0-9]*

Previous RFC authors have abstained from using the hyphen when
specifying RRTYPE and CLASS mnemonics. Regex 1 should constrain future
authors and IANA to follow established custom and practice. The only
historical exception (NSAP-PTR) lived quietly in RFC1348 and became
obsolete in 1994.

Regex 2, as written, fails to match unknown type and class identifiers
having leading zeroes in the numeric part, which is not explicitly
disallowed by RFC3597.  IMHO the mnemonics CLASS and TYPE (no digits)
should also be disallowed to avoid accidental ingestion of
place-holders if/when any part of this process becomes automated.

Dick

On 11 June 2012 18:43, Olafur Gudmundsson <ogud@ogud.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> Dear colleagues
>
>
>
> This message starts a 2 week WGLC for RFC6195bis ending at midnight UTZ June 28'th 2012.
>
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dnsext-rfc6195bis-02
>
>
>
> This document addresses known flaws in the RFC6195 (see appendix A).
>
>
>
> Please review the document and post a note that you have reviewed the document we need a minimum of 5 reviewers.
>
>
>
>     Olafur & Andrew
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> dnsext mailing list
>
> dnsext@ietf.org
>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext
>