Re: [DNSOP] why did SRV care to avoid conflicts

Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org> Mon, 26 March 2018 22:18 UTC

Return-Path: <marka@isc.org>
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 3C47F1276AF for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 Mar 2018 15:18:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.911
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.911 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-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 ht63836Vktkf for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 Mar 2018 15:18:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.pao1.isc.org (mx.pao1.isc.org [149.20.64.53]) (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 B6389126579 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Mon, 26 Mar 2018 15:18:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from zmx1.isc.org (zmx1.isc.org [149.20.0.20]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx.pao1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7F4353AB03E; Mon, 26 Mar 2018 22:18:20 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from zmx1.isc.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zmx1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 67141160071; Mon, 26 Mar 2018 22:18:20 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zmx1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C24D160070; Mon, 26 Mar 2018 22:18:20 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from zmx1.isc.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (zmx1.isc.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id V0Jmi4Ve2ZhX; Mon, 26 Mar 2018 22:18:20 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [172.30.42.90] (c27-253-115-14.carlnfd2.nsw.optusnet.com.au [27.253.115.14]) by zmx1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9A5B516006B; Mon, 26 Mar 2018 22:18:19 +0000 (UTC)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.3 \(3273\))
From: Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org>
In-Reply-To: <5AB96F3C.4090204@redbarn.org>
Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2018 09:18:16 +1100
Cc: "dnsop@ietf.org" <dnsop@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <A400D2A3-3866-4EE3-879B-479991581502@isc.org>
References: <5AB96F3C.4090204@redbarn.org>
To: Paul Vixie <paul@redbarn.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3273)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/AHta_tR_d3mr18evqQBF0-ANSgE>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] why did SRV care to avoid conflicts
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: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 22:18:22 -0000

Type comes AFTER name when looking up records.  Label name spaces are NOT type specific.  They are relative to the  RHS of the name they are part of.

There needs to be a registry of all label that can appear immediately to the left of a valid host name.
For each of those labels there needs to registries of what can appear to the immediate left of it.
For each of those labels there needs to registries of what can appear to the immediate left of it.
For each of those labels there needs to registries of what can appear to the immediate left of it.
For each of those labels there needs to registries of what can appear to the immediate left of it.
For each of those labels there needs to registries of what can appear to the immediate left of it.
For each of those labels there needs to registries of what can appear to the immediate left of it.

EACH of these registries are INDEPENDENT of type.

For SRV records only the first two levels matter.  For other types there are different numbers of registries involved.

> On 27 Mar 2018, at 9:07 am, Paul Vixie <paul@redbarn.org> wrote:
> 
> following klensin's observations that cross-rrtype conflicts cannot occur and that the only _necessary_ registry is of predefined labels with specific meanings _within each rrtype_, i've strugged to piece together my memory of why i wanted _ names for SRV at all.
> 
> it's because the meaning of RCODE=0 && ANCOUNT=00 was once different, or at least interpreted differently, by some stub resolvers, compared to RCODE=3. it had to do with temporary vs. permanent failures in e-mail, as i recall.
> 
> in any case today it's a non-issue. if i were specifying SRV today i would not bother with underbars, because TCP.REDBARN.ORG or UDP.REDBARN.ORG would not confuse any app that looks up AAAA (or A), since they would hear RCODE=0 && ANCOUNT=0, and fail hard.
> 
> -- 
> P Vixie
> 
> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list
> DNSOP@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop

-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742              INTERNET: marka@isc.org