Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf-12.txt

/no/ changes to the spec, except to correct the typo Bob Harold spotted.
Correct?

On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 9:23 AM, Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net> wrote:

>
> For completeness:
>
>      Absent further discussion and agreement in the wg, I taking this
> exchange as producing /no/ changes to the spec.
>
> d/
>
>
> On 7/24/2018 7:58 AM, John Levine wrote:
>
>> In article <9DA145F4-DF6A-4BFA-B3C9-56027B228050@iis.se> you write:
>>
>>> -=-=-=-=-=-
>>> In table 2 on page 9, the draft refers to RFC 2782 for _dccp and _sctp
>>> (SRV), but those “_node names”
>>> are not even mentioned in the RFC. Are they defined elsewhere?
>>>
>>
>> RFC 2782 says that SRV's are named with _proto where proto is is a
>> protocol name.  RFCs 3588 and 6733 say to do _sctp SRV lookups, but
>> don't further define them, and only have 2782 as an informative
>> reference.  No RFC mentions _dccp.
>>
>> It seems to me that 2782 is the right reference for _sctp.  For _dccp
>> we've had arguments about whether 2782 says that a SRV can be named by
>> any protocol so maybe we should put in every protocol in the IANA
>> registry.  That's a lot of dead protocols.  A reasonable compromise
>> would be to start the registry with the names that have some evidence
>> of being used somewhere, so we could drop _dccp
>>
>> In the same table, the draft refers to RFC 7553 for a number of URI _node
>>> names, but the references are quite
>>> indirect. Could references to relevant IANA registries be added?
>>>
>>
>> Since RFC 7553 is the place that says that the enumservice names turn
>> into _node names, I think that's the right reference.
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Dave Crocker
> Brandenburg InternetWorking
> bbiw.net
>
> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list
> DNSOP@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
>