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

["John R. Levine" <[e-mail]>]

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, [e-mail], Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly