Re: [DNSOP] Another look - draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf-05.txt

[Dave Crocker <[e-mail]>]

On 3/26/2018 9:14 AM, John C Klensin wrote:
> (1) The text in Section 1.1 says
> 
> 	'the DNS rules for a "host" (host name) are not allowed
> 	to use the underscore character... legal host names
> 	[RFC1035]'
> 
> 1035 does not say that.  Its section 2.3.1 is about what is
> preferred, not what is required (or "legal").  It says "should"

Note that when that spec was written, we didn't have such precise and 
rigid vocabulary rules.

But RFC 1123 should be cited, especially since it has more forceful 
language: "The syntax of a legal Internet host name". (RFC6055 seems to 
have missed the import of 'legal'.)


> and "preferred", but there is no requirement.  As far as I know,
> there has never been a serious attempt to turn that preference
> into a requirement.  Indeed, RFC 8121 says exactly the opposite

Please cite the specific text in that RFC you are referencing.


> and, if there were a prohibition, RFC 6055 would have been
> largely unnecessary.

Overall, it appears that your claim is that the underscore naming 
convention is predicated on an erroneous interpretation of 'hostname' 
restrictions.  As such, the entire activity is broken.

d/

-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net