Re: [DNSOP] Another look - draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf-05.txt

"John R. Levine" <johnl@iecc.com> Mon, 26 March 2018 08:44 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 E693D1243F6 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 Mar 2018 01:44:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.011
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.011 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] 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 GdsiS7zIVyGv for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 Mar 2018 01:44:41 -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 2F8401204DA for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Mon, 26 Mar 2018 01:44:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 90525 invoked from network); 26 Mar 2018 08:44:39 -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=1619a.5ab8b2f7.k1803; bh=SPBCY+cJ47pC6qCNoKNQd7BHEZky/rHKTKK7BET5r/Q=; b=DbJCaxPj3jg7I8AgpS3yO14Ng+b1tyv5s0nFsqnKezbIhu0ScG3AmeTg0Mn3+cnemV1ovzGgizPoTcUBbCkXkjr6if5078ryxfP0VMNX26VDKnOxTGuqJhmET0SbFfyYRKUBZRSeo44FJUSLQzsluGfgK/ODA0aRStrxOT1w33EcWkqwwG9vsYG31aZSOQ9vCI0uCUTzNHOXl1jX1jzQVfg0IoqOzhpemKLOaHgDFjUGS6UZ60Tsp7x6d80EwQmm
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; 26 Mar 2018 08:44:39 -0000
Date: 26 Mar 2018 09:44:41 +0100
Message-ID: <alpine.OSX.2.21.1803260915260.19119@ary.local>
From: "John R. Levine" <johnl@iecc.com>
To: "John C Klensin" <john-ietf@jck.com>
Cc: art@ietf.org, dnsop@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <4C79BE1080735A41C8697C8D@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> <alpine.OSX.2.21.1803211507380.9666@dhcp-935d.meeting.ietf.org> <1DF1564CC2B88726B2B54CF4@PSB> <5AB89C4C.7090300@redbarn.org> <4C79BE1080735A41C8697C8D@PSB>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.21 (OSX 202 2017-01-01)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=US-ASCII
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/EkkNT9WH4v5tjiUmPa6lKxynciE>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Another look - draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf-05.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: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 08:44:43 -0000

On Mon, 26 Mar 2018, John C Klensin wrote:
> If you are telling me I've fighting a losing battle, I understand that. 
> At the same time, as I trust people have figured out from RFC 8324 
> and/or Bert's presentation in DNSOP last week, ...

This is our history coming back to bite us.  Two decades of DNS WG people 
insisting that adding new RRTYPEs is easy and anyone who thinks otherwise 
is a moron has blown our credibility even though we mostly don't say that 
any more.  I also note the underwhelming IETF interest in my extension 
language proposal, while at the same time people who use the DNS have paid 
me to implement it.

I think we could put in a sentence or two pointing out that new RRTYPEs 
are often a better option, particularly if you might want to use 
wildcards.

>> i have reproduced your entire second suggestion here, because i think 
>> it's solid. rrset atomicity means you're right, and that underbar'ed 
>> labels need only be unique within an RRTYPE, and any registry of such 
>> labels can and therefore should be per-RRTYPE.

Technically, you are completely correct.  But since the namespace is in 
effect infinite I would just as soon not have to explain to anyone why 
_foo for SRV means the same thing as _foo for URI but different from _foo 
for TXT.  As we've seen it's hard enough to understand the separate second 
level underscore namespaces and we're stuck with them.

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