Re: [DNSOP] attrleaf

Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net> Tue, 28 March 2017 19:13 UTC

Return-Path: <dhc@dcrocker.net>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 76C50129490 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 28 Mar 2017 12:13:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.002
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.002 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=dcrocker.net
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 RN9f6_6LR5eG for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 28 Mar 2017 12:13:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from simon.songbird.com (simon.songbird.com [72.52.113.5]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8EEAD129648 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 28 Mar 2017 12:13:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [31.133.143.184] (dhcp-8fb8.meeting.ietf.org [31.133.143.184]) (authenticated bits=0) by simon.songbird.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/Debian-4.1ubuntu1) with ESMTP id v2SJFWmG032656 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Tue, 28 Mar 2017 12:15:32 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=dcrocker.net; s=default; t=1490728533; bh=wHJFOfEo+Yg0COnX6piHuFQLr6cz4JSQoQbwXYzg8Ik=; h=Subject:To:References:Cc:Reply-To:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=KQWAocKNszJHOI1PYx8AZgM0HY4IwyacqwTBGS0/3vblProu/jqDiYXoIyjZbjfbU RHByikMYGGwm6Ny4SOoc6hxPPf8mP8jMCGsEamJu1Qh227Frdna5WS/V5GpXq2dCH1 NZCJYXzVRfSICVZl7YhEqO+HoLSlLomymxPNES1w=
To: Paul Vixie <paul@redbarn.org>
References: <58DA9747.1070405@redbarn.org> <2ec2593d-c5a7-7f0b-c9fb-bcb1fa2d5073@dcrocker.net> <58DAA17D.80504@redbarn.org>
Cc: "dnsop@ietf.org" <dnsop@ietf.org>
Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
From: Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
Message-ID: <a9d76833-cf74-90e6-fdfa-df95b4b08c0d@dcrocker.net>
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2017 14:13:16 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <58DAA17D.80504@redbarn.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/-x60luFLSXRL0vN4_Jt9UMEoMKE>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] attrleaf
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <dnsop.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dnsop/>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsop@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2017 19:13:35 -0000

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