Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf-04.txt

Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net> Thu, 22 March 2018 23:23 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 E71741270AC for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 Mar 2018 16:23:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.001 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_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 o8KVoVMROzgn for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 Mar 2018 16:23:36 -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 AB100124D6C for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Mar 2018 16:23:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.168] (76-218-8-128.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net [76.218.8.128]) (authenticated bits=0) by simon.songbird.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/Debian-4.1ubuntu1) with ESMTP id w2MNOrIQ003214 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 22 Mar 2018 16:24:53 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=dcrocker.net; s=default; t=1521761095; bh=4mTQEovIm2ztt/bTZ73KOFFaFhTAPVUkd0wF6BDBfBg=; h=Reply-To:Subject:To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=UTSwJo/l0YIoDRiQ6rYyCLR4cKe/V1ab6Mxp2yU+snCvMWEoVPfjWmtNP0rDIYOB8 6wrhsXLwQYP+WFBtKL+waVN19ARG3cErYFRy7SBG33Sq4gWA5+26n+VlcKkjJe2xLr HfT6yZnltDHkh+xujvWxJRSo1Zyb4g35eWPxPzIM=
Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
To: Ray Bellis <ray@bellis.me.uk>, dnsop@ietf.org
References: <152175067742.4320.2858795077822055877@ietfa.amsl.com> <89bd2240-27ef-9e36-0f31-5fef0a808e7c@bellis.me.uk>
From: Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
Message-ID: <69259d86-34c5-253b-431e-ed896389bdb6@dcrocker.net>
Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2018 16:23:24 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <89bd2240-27ef-9e36-0f31-5fef0a808e7c@bellis.me.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/7HpVbvqZNkD8TQUjtq4ny9ENHc8>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf-04.txt
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: Thu, 22 Mar 2018 23:23:38 -0000

On 3/22/2018 2:41 PM, Ray Bellis wrote:
> Dave,
> 
> I think this is much improved :)
> 
> A few nits:
> 
>> Each globally-registered underscore name owns a distinct, subordinate
>> name space.
> 
> except when it doesn't (i.e. the SRV transports all share the *same*
> subordinate name space).

Well, ummm, I think this demonstrates the difference between theory and 
practice.  In theoretical terms -- as far as the global registration 
scheme goes -- they /do/ have their own name spaces.  In practical 
terms, they adhere to some additional conventions that choose to use the 
same subordinate one.

I suppose some sort of language that notes this possibility -- since 
it's a popular choice -- is worth adding, to moderate the tone of 
independence in the current draft.

> 
> - on that note, _sctp and _dccp are missing from the global table.

ack.


> - the table formatting is pretty poor, do we really need any more
>    than just "NAME", "RR" and "REFERENCE"?   The ID field just seems
>    to be an alternate mnemonic for the (already unique) underscore
>    label itself

I added control because the message header field registration work has 
it and it occurred to me it's worth marking.

> 
> - the IANA considerations still refer to the now non-existent common
>    second-level table

darn.  thought i'd expunged them all.

the word 'second' appears to now be fully absent from the next version 
of the draft...


> Not a nit:
> 
> - is there a reference for IANA "First Come First Served" rules, and
>    should we perhaps also mandate "specification required" as a
>    pre-condition for registration?   We don't want that table filled
>    with any old junk without a stable specification.

What is the downside of leaving the requirement out?

I'm a minimalist in terms of the role of a registry.  To the extent 
possible, I think that it only has to do registration with 
accountability.  There are cases where more stringent requirements make 
sense, but I don't see this as one of them: there not any danger I can 
see in a useless registration entry and there's lots of namespace.

Thoughts?

d/



-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net