[DNSOP] comments ( was Re: Call for Adoption: draft-crocker-dns-attrleaf)
Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net> Mon, 29 February 2016 22:07 UTC
Return-Path: <dhc@dcrocker.net>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8CECB1B3DAC for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 Feb 2016 14:07:20 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.301
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.301 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] autolearn=ham
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 y3HyivSBQzMd for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 Feb 2016 14:07:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1FA931B3DA6 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Mon, 29 Feb 2016 14:07:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.87] (76-218-10-206.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net [76.218.10.206]) (authenticated bits=0) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id u1TM7G41006240 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 29 Feb 2016 14:07:16 -0800
To: Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca>
References: <3713017b-cbe6-f4fc-c045-074e0f684952@gmail.com> <alpine.LFD.2.20.1602291046140.15752@bofh.nohats.ca>
From: Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
Message-ID: <56D4C10C.7070100@dcrocker.net>
Date: Mon, 29 Feb 2016 14:07:08 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LFD.2.20.1602291046140.15752@bofh.nohats.ca>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]); Mon, 29 Feb 2016 14:07:16 -0800 (PST)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/0nL6Zkyt5_hNStWBkfsHkLEZ_f4>
Cc: dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>
Subject: [DNSOP] comments ( was Re: Call for Adoption: draft-crocker-dns-attrleaf)
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
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: Mon, 29 Feb 2016 22:07:20 -0000
On 2/29/2016 7:54 AM, Paul Wouters wrote: > Some comments so far: thanks for pursuing this. responses: > Normally we try to leave "private use" ranges in registries for people > to experiment on. It would be good to have that here as well, or else we > won't be able to differentiate experimentation from standarization. I > suggest reserving the double underscore space (__*) for private use > (provided this isn't already in wide use) There is a real problem with private naming, and that is that any use of private names that becomes successful is then faced with having to change all existing behaviors to move to a publicly-registered name. I think it makes more sense to have new uses choose a name that can eventually be registered and simply experiment with it 'raw' until then. Given the size of the namespace, the likelihood of a collision during initial testing is quite small. To make it even smaller, we can make the barrier to getting an entry in the _Underscore registry very low. > The document should probably explain the RRtype listed in the registry > and interaction/allowance with CNAME/DNAME. 1. What do you mean 'explain' and why should the registry contain this information? Specifically, how is that information essential to simple and useful operation of the registry? 2. Entries of this type run the risk of either repeating text in the actual specification -- and therefore diverging from it if the spec changes -- or badly summarizing the spec. > Are there any known already existing conflicts where two protocols use > the same underscore entry. If so, how do we resolve that issue? I don't recall seeing any, in spite of how many _underscore names there already are. > What are the requirements for entry into this registry. I would not want > to see a rush of people registering vanity names for pet projects, > taking away all the sensible one word entries. I see _mail is available :) Well, we know the concern about vanity use of DNS-related names is a long way from silly, so alas I guess we have to worry about that. grrr... From the list of IANA choices for this: http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5226#section-4.2 I'm inclined to suggest 'Specification Required'. In my own view, an internet draft ought to qualify, since they no longer disappear, but I believe the community view is that it would require an RFC or the like. d/ -- -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net
- [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-crocker-dns-attr… Tim Wicinski
- Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-crocker-dns-… Paul Wouters
- Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-crocker-dns-… John Levine
- [DNSOP] SRV-related _underscore registry (was Re:… Dave Crocker
- [DNSOP] comments ( was Re: Call for Adoption: dra… Dave Crocker
- Re: [DNSOP] SRV-related _underscore registry (was… John R Levine
- Re: [DNSOP] SRV-related _underscore registry (was… Ray Bellis
- Re: [DNSOP] comments ( was Re: Call for Adoption:… John Levine
- Re: [DNSOP] SRV-related _underscore registry (was… Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-crocker-dns-… Warren Kumari
- Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-crocker-dns-… joel jaeggli
- Re: [DNSOP] comments ( was Re: Call for Adoption:… Paul Wouters
- Re: [DNSOP] SRV-related _underscore registry (was… Dave Crocker
- Re: [DNSOP] SRV-related _underscore registry (was… John Levine
- Re: [DNSOP] SRV-related _underscore registry (was… Ray Bellis
- Re: [DNSOP] SRV-related _underscore registry (was… John Levine
- Re: [DNSOP] SRV-related _underscore registry (was… Ray Bellis
- Re: [DNSOP] SRV-related _underscore registry (was… Dave Crocker
- Re: [DNSOP] SRV-related _underscore registry (was… John R Levine
- Re: [DNSOP] SRV-related _underscore registry (was… Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: [DNSOP] SRV-related _underscore registry (was… John Levine
- Re: [DNSOP] SRV-related _underscore registry (was… Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: [DNSOP] SRV-related _underscore registry (was… Mark Andrews
- Re: [DNSOP] old arguments unrelated to SRV-relate… John R Levine
- Re: [DNSOP] old arguments unrelated to SRV-relate… Mark Andrews
- Re: [DNSOP] old arguments unrelated to SRV-relate… Jared Mauch
- Re: [DNSOP] old arguments unrelated to SRV-relate… John R Levine
- Re: [DNSOP] SRV-related _underscore registry (was… Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: [DNSOP] old arguments unrelated to SRV-relate… Mark Andrews
- Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-crocker-dns-… Dave Crocker
- Re: [DNSOP] SRV-related _underscore registry (was… Stuart Cheshire
- Re: [DNSOP] SRV-related _underscore registry (was… Phillip Hallam-Baker