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

[Dave Crocker <[e-mail]>]

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