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

Ray Bellis <ray@bellis.me.uk> Fri, 04 August 2017 16:53 UTC

Return-Path: <ray@bellis.me.uk>
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 730DF132353 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 4 Aug 2017 09:53:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 ykavl3akUJgP for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 4 Aug 2017 09:53:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hydrogen.portfast.net (hydrogen.portfast.net [188.246.200.2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7BEEB132055 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Fri, 4 Aug 2017 09:53:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [46.227.151.81] (port=57605 helo=rays-mbp.local) by hydrogen.portfast.net ([188.246.200.2]:465) with esmtpsa (fixed_plain:ray@bellis.me.uk) (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) id 1ddfqo-0001Kj-FE (Exim 4.72) for dnsop@ietf.org (return-path <ray@bellis.me.uk>); Fri, 04 Aug 2017 17:53:26 +0100
To: dnsop@ietf.org
References: <CADyWQ+HiVOz1zrhNeEYnzy4hryrhFu+v5GNWqcXdOqQBeB9Cig@mail.gmail.com> <9fc7ff7d-9f5a-ce2b-9fb1-e9b1c9eb0108@nostrum.com> <94641677-d072-3462-1c72-ab203c553eef@dcrocker.net> <CAAiTEH8JwU8qEfCy-XrTFpHV1sQpjtEVzwZfu9=xWQZh2hyDZA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Ray Bellis <ray@bellis.me.uk>
Message-ID: <05b40bc8-7b7e-782f-12fd-db719460d7c1@bellis.me.uk>
Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2017 17:53:27 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.12; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.2.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAAiTEH8JwU8qEfCy-XrTFpHV1sQpjtEVzwZfu9=xWQZh2hyDZA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/0AL2qCOQVeLaYQlldfr43Fh7btU>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] [art] draft-ietf-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: Fri, 04 Aug 2017 16:53:33 -0000


On 04/08/2017 17:02, Matthew Pounsett wrote:

> Do I understand correctly that the intent is to obsolete existing
> underscore registries (whether they be actual IANA registries, or just
> code points listed in a draft) and move their data to a new, central
> registry?   This seems sensible to me.

I agree that it's sensible for those underscore labels that appear
rightmost in a string of one or more such labels, e.g. the _udp label of
an SRV record owner-name, but not the _proto that precedes it.

Ray