Re: [DNSOP] attrleaf

[Dave Crocker <[e-mail]>]

On 3/28/2017 12:46 PM, Paul Vixie wrote:
> i don't think it's wise to estimate damage by observed complain level.
> if _ is now in world wide use for all kinds of stuff, you can still say
> that SRV got it wrong, and that the recommended way to do this kind of
> thing is different from what SRV did. you could also do what a lot of
> operating system developers had to do about _ use with C, which is use
> two underscores in the next design, whose use will be better policed.


Hmmm.  So, I missed that you were targeting the narrower issue of SRV, 
per se, rather than the broader (and shallower) task of attrleaf.

With respect to domain naming -- as opposed to SRV RR details -- the SRV 
spec is more of a template meta-spec -- guidance for later, specific 
specs -- than a detailed spec itself.

As such, one can easily mandate defining a modified template for new SRV 
definitions, going forward.

As John suggests, I think this is independent of the attrleaf task and 
doesn't affect it.

d/

-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net