Re: [DNSOP] request for adoption

Paul Wouters <> Tue, 13 November 2018 06:03 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 37976130DD4 for <>; Mon, 12 Nov 2018 22:03:25 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9CjSH9u1CqoZ for <>; Mon, 12 Nov 2018 22:03:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B54B6130DC8 for <>; Mon, 12 Nov 2018 22:03:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 42vH9g50zszF6h; Tue, 13 Nov 2018 07:03:19 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=default; t=1542088999; bh=bwHqNPGgy/jiZy9zWh39DSuKFvxd8yrgeHvSLCtbUfE=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=ZUiOoTQ5PYR+93/QoU7MJnJUfTtIuZTQ2bvHDxjShpY2ao4SdnlG9dIdZUMbGYF2Z g+OeyUy76hVWwwZURvIKLwLTmQ5gPj8owiR2b/9jMy/Ndv1x7SxKN/MUQUvyktyqNz OnpO+xQ1dNLS3O3MCsn5qOF2q0dNDj8qGzNcNFWU=
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
Received: from ([IPv6:::1]) by localhost ( [IPv6:::1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id aWB1ZVpCduKn; Tue, 13 Nov 2018 07:03:18 +0100 (CET)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Tue, 13 Nov 2018 07:03:17 +0100 (CET)
Received: by (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 96D13319409; Tue, 13 Nov 2018 01:03:16 -0500 (EST)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 96D13319409
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8AF9D41C3B39; Tue, 13 Nov 2018 01:03:16 -0500 (EST)
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2018 01:03:16 -0500
From: Paul Wouters <>
To: Ladislav Lhotka <>
cc: DNSOP WG <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Message-ID: <>
References: <>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.21 (LRH 202 2017-01-01)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] request for adoption
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2018 06:03:25 -0000

On Mon, 12 Nov 2018, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:

> we would like to ask the working group to adopt the following I-D as a
> WG item:

I'll leave that call up to the chairs bit it sounds like a good idea.

I have reviewed the document.

First, the yand model is correct in the draft. But unfortunately, the IANA registry
itself has flaws.

I am also confused by the difference between deprecated and obsoleted. I guess the
yang model interprets the IANA regitry, but the registry has no official column
designation for this. I wonder if it should be given one. I also then suggest that
the terms obsoleted and deprecated be merged into one term.

I see some RRTYPES are listed as EXPERIMENTAL in the IANA registry while these are
really OBSOLETED. I wonder if we can do a quick draft that moves those to HISTORIC,
so this yang model can use the proper "obsoleted" entry for these. I am referring to:

MB 	7 	a mailbox domain name (EXPERIMENTAL) 	[RFC1035] 
MG 	8 	a mail group member (EXPERIMENTAL) 	[RFC1035] 
MR 	9 	a mail rename domain name (EXPERIMENTAL) 	[RFC1035]

RP 	17 	for Responsible Person

X25 	19 	for X.25 PSDN address

ISDN 	20 	for ISDN address 	[RFC1183] 
RT 	21 	for Route Through 	[RFC1183] 
NSAP 	22 	for NSAP address, NSAP style A record 	[RFC1706] 
NSAP-PTR 	23 	for domain name pointer, NSAP style

PX 	26 	X.400 mail mapping information 	[RFC2163] 
GPOS 	27 	Geographical Position 	[RFC1712]

KX 	36 	Key Exchanger 	[RFC2230]

A6 	38 	A6 (OBSOLETE - use AAAA)

DLV 	32769 	DNSSEC Lookaside Validation

The following entries are deprecated or obsoleted by an RFC, but not marked as such in the IANA

AFSDB 	18 	for AFS Data Base location  	[RFC1183][RFC5864]
SIG 	24 	for security signature 	[RFC4034][RFC3755][RFC2535][RFC2536][RFC2537][RFC2931][RFC3110][RFC3008] 
KEY 	25 	for security key 	[RFC4034][RFC3755][RFC2535][RFC2536][RFC2537][RFC2539][RFC3008][RFC3110]

NXT 	30 	Next Domain (OBSOLETE)

(Odd how NXT is marked obsolete but not SIG or KEY. These are a set and should be treated the same)

(I'm skipping NULL, MINFO/HINFO on purpose to due Olafur :)


It seems that the IANA address in Section 3 implies Canada (CA) or more likely suffers
from the assumption that no country specified means "United States". Please specify
the country :)