Re: [DNSOP] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf-fix-04: (with COMMENT)

Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> Wed, 10 October 2018 15:52 UTC

Return-Path: <adam@nostrum.com>
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 6F162130F3A; Wed, 10 Oct 2018 08:52:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.88
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.88 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_SPF_HELO_PERMERROR=0.01, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 7wJZqDgnfuRx; Wed, 10 Oct 2018 08:52:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E7F96130F47; Wed, 10 Oct 2018 08:52:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from Svantevit.local (99-152-146-228.lightspeed.dllstx.sbcglobal.net [99.152.146.228]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id w9AFqSVa039063 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Wed, 10 Oct 2018 10:52:29 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from adam@nostrum.com)
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host 99-152-146-228.lightspeed.dllstx.sbcglobal.net [99.152.146.228] claimed to be Svantevit.local
To: Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: benno@NLnetLabs.nl, dnsop@ietf.org, dnsop-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf-fix@ietf.org
References: <153905658979.18363.9468480045775152891.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <7e5ae04b-e285-e0e8-0c8e-44a6cbeeca25@dcrocker.net>
From: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
Message-ID: <ee53117a-f17d-05b0-0fbc-c90da2e3e9c1@nostrum.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2018 10:52:23 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.13; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.2.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <7e5ae04b-e285-e0e8-0c8e-44a6cbeeca25@dcrocker.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/9-II64Sp3CPUIK0Nk8Rh_VT8DW4>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf-fix-04: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Wed, 10 Oct 2018 15:52:34 -0000

On 10/10/18 8:51 AM, Dave Crocker wrote:
> Responding to your additional comments... 


Thanks!

I think this reply covers everything that warranted a specific response 
except for the questions in the following three comments, which are 
asking specifically about URI RRs:

> Comment 1: Was the removal of "web" intentional?
>
> Comment 2: These initial entries misspell "xmpp" as "xmp"
>
> Comment 3: Is it envisioned that all future URI entries in this table will
> reference RFC 7533? That doesn't quite seem right. My instinct is that it would
> serve the users of this registry better if:
>
>   - _iax refers to RFC 6315
>   - _acct refers to RFC 7566
>   - All other enumservice-based URI entries in the current table refer to
>     RFC 6118
>   - RFC 7533 is mentioned elsewhere in the document as the reason enumservices
>     appear in the table.

/a