Re: [DNSOP] [art] redefining SRV, New Version Notification for draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf-03.txt

"John R. Levine" <johnl@iecc.com> Wed, 21 March 2018 15:14 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@iecc.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 5A86012751F for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 21 Mar 2018 08:14:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.01
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.01 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.d=iecc.com
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 JNsk-1zjib3o for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 21 Mar 2018 08:14:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:43:6f73:7461]) (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 DC51B12D944 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Wed, 21 Mar 2018 08:14:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 69372 invoked from network); 21 Mar 2018 15:14:52 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type:user-agent; s=10efa.5ab276ec.k1803; bh=EYg6EFlEw9xuO56kO+TrB7dhQ4w+PYtrvjQU6eo04c8=; b=Fzbsbgfj+xt8Bc9ai/DUAoLgqrApFKlOAMUUaEA+WCCwPqjchUUm2kZVa+fxpSkYncYdGZ1+zxZAqWVCJ9KsGAY6nXFPQQVye4Ncs0Do68+6ATerfPZ/jQtWttz6xHj2ERwWlla2KoY6MmKGs0ZRmgpQF2JWKlo8R/7pEVB8Pny/oJdlKPuD1DRr3NVCTrFw1bmtDeRqWZJOkz+kTeF34I4IBdfcMZ9tOWVbVVnoU1JbMQd7E4rtSRdGuPJXXkNe
Received: from localhost ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) by imap.iecc.com ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) with ESMTPS (TLS1.2/X.509/AEAD) via TCP6; 21 Mar 2018 15:14:51 -0000
Date: 21 Mar 2018 15:14:47 +0000
Message-ID: <alpine.OSX.2.21.1803211507380.9666@dhcp-935d.meeting.ietf.org>
From: "John R. Levine" <johnl@iecc.com>
To: "John C Klensin" <john-ietf@jck.com>
Cc: "Dave Crocker" <dcrocker@bbiw.net>, art@ietf.org, dnsop@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <5F44FA5B42805C52479DE491@PSB>
References: <f7b85bac-b050-5003-2df0-a48b1ef2f929@dcrocker.net> <e1f41670-ada8-eaac-468c-c712b338a10b@dcrocker.net> <alpine.OSX.2.21.1803201804440.8940@dhcp-8344.meeting.ietf.org> <A7711F58-5145-49E8-9158-B2F94D0EABBF@redbarn.org> <7c168dc1-2ea7-d47e-78b7-0380e5d0aa84@dcrocker.net> <alpine.OSX.2.21.1803211104210.9553@ary.local> <5244d327-f8ea-1590-c663-1d92e0b194c4@dcrocker.net> <5F44FA5B42805C52479DE491@PSB>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.21 (OSX 202 2017-01-01)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/BmSCcCi5ksUm-PwZ0tjsHIZcoRA>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] [art] redefining SRV, New Version Notification for draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf-03.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: Wed, 21 Mar 2018 15:14:57 -0000

> AFAICT, the only change that is being made to existing specs is to 
> provide that, if new keywords are used/added, they should probably be 
> registered too.

The proposal changes the spec for naming SRV records, by replacing the 
existing service name registry with a new, different one, and vastly 
shrinking the list of known names.  To me, that is nuts.  It will 
retroactively make an unknown set of existing SRV records non-standard.

The part about adding new names as they are defined is fine.  Rewriting 
history is not.

Regards,
John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly