Re: [DNSOP] Working Group Last Call for: draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf

Dick Franks <> Tue, 10 July 2018 17:05 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C14213114C for <>; Tue, 10 Jul 2018 10:05:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.399
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.399 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.249, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lE-YorvOrEhL for <>; Tue, 10 Jul 2018 10:05:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::42a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DE74D13113E for <>; Tue, 10 Jul 2018 10:05:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id c13-v6so15351139wrt.1 for <>; Tue, 10 Jul 2018 10:05:01 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc; bh=y9lnTHnQ6qpORnHdYEM8gf1x33omiaTaJ4Vgl7cso6A=; b=MllOnj+eafAHyW65GC5n91b2JVNVgOl0kI9xXrPsbV1kjG5FbXDuQB/+eicVMshXy7 unAD9+33TAxntZQNVxLAKVpl3mx4hOmQ0wFgncjFfQN90hgoliu17fbx5bu+FBDdfn4H Urc4anDalK6aS+TbQACGASCDcglkjXwiUNS4W/QMyw8HPylDx4w7NMzMEcsc7G57uzH/ cHNOuSKWLgH0zOxKM1WJtwyNBoy16HSay/3kwOtpYQ6ozXdmQr2FJy6c0PPpiEZz4X2S xCmOFtuX8UoEyqmXo4y5x9LcMJLH/exUNIEjmbnAoWuhmfBBa9e3qRLTCI2kOTzUQWlL CpQA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=y9lnTHnQ6qpORnHdYEM8gf1x33omiaTaJ4Vgl7cso6A=; b=LplrWedqGx5F+Er5zOqO0ydUXGfgrpQtYRzRsrG3ei3QcHUmIxq6p7M80YRDgzW+35 +t5HSICTh0binglHD3J9xOjjGLWhrO1cCOC8ONpiODVxAfD3XoDDomVoEJaH6CAVMgn7 M4cTyZ29Po+288pP57Du+U+sqQpNjD8kXzTkUBjEnwX4DlodLX76AEZhQ2YaM2Lhi4Z6 5MZkiE4LQaSi/Jztf4P324AGyAKF2VvDRGVbqUL7U6/eoN13MthkHvBMiHdyWaNt//SZ RoymYnzF4sSnTq+gwZ9aw46GUxdMrV2B7YDhd0lk0tJoQQZC+7Z5P7chgfjnqPOPX+0k eD1Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOUpUlGWolZGrpSAF1suGDPaUmTqdkCH5YxKApBEhVXVtfgCNJMxdije 2Bk4Cwwc/qT+l0frP3Fhs4k53zNOXi+EKp+VEvY=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AAOMgpdpyucepgn7gVnmi8QdKW2iWlxlULGAdpLp9oBztUi+HqS9f/4lLJ6myBHIBpbnMwxz77TP5MIJwe45KFbPr+4=
X-Received: by 2002:adf:9183:: with SMTP id 3-v6mr5052125wri.122.1531242300509; Tue, 10 Jul 2018 10:05:00 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 2002:adf:c7c4:0:0:0:0:0 with HTTP; Tue, 10 Jul 2018 10:04:19 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <>
From: Dick Franks <>
Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2018 18:04:19 +0100
X-Google-Sender-Auth: TkZ_JlwGoqbqQ1uW3ArL9ccFld8
Message-ID: <>
To: Dave Crocker <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000006313800570a82161"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Working Group Last Call for: draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2018 17:05:05 -0000

On 10 July 2018 at 15:32, Dave Crocker <> wrote:

> On 7/9/2018 2:35 PM, Dick Franks wrote:

>>   <t>If a public specification calls for the use of an
>> underscore-prefixed domain name,
>> the underscored name closest to the root MUST be entered into this
>> registry.
> Thanks.  I've added some tweakage to your text:
>  <t>If a public specification calls for use of an _underscore-prefixed
>    domain node name, the 'global' underscored name -- the name that is
>    closest to the DNS root -- MUST be entered into this registry.
>    Historically, this is the right-most name that is begins with an
>    underscore.</t>

You just seem to have reintroduced yet more confusing and redundant

The whole point of my suggested text was to remove the extraneous
directional adjectives
like "right-most", "highest-level", "top-most", "global", etc., which we
have already established
are not as concise or unambiguous as we might have wished.

Also,  "domain name" is the recognised and recommended usage per RFC7719
and the latest
DNS Terminology draft.

A reference to RFC7719 or its successor would be sufficient for readers
unfamiliar with DNS
terminology, if indeed there are any.

As for _underscore-prefixed,  there are enough examples in the document for
even the most
intellectually challenged reader to grasp what underscore-prefixed domain
names look like.
Idiosyncratic usage reflects badly on the document production standards of
the organisation.

> > (Editorial:  The word underscore does not itself need to be
> > underscore-prefixed)