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

[Paul Vixie <[e-mail]>]

dave, i wasn't going to reply at all, since your snark is a turn-off. 
however, john decided to make this thing real, so now i'm stuck with it.

srv has a registry. that's working. that need not change.

adding another registry for other rr types who want to have well known 
underscored names will harm nobody and i'm unopposed.

paul

re:

Dave Crocker wrote:
> On 3/21/2018 4:05 AM, John R. Levine wrote:
>>>>  Harmonization for the sake of harmonization is bad, and very little
>>>>  Internet System technology gets it. Just do new stuff better.
>>>
>>> I agree completely. So please forgive my not understanding how your
>>> first and third comments are relevant to the current topic, which
>>> pertains to ensuring that new behaviors use the new model.
>>
>> I'm not Paul, but I'm guessing that he is referring to retroactively
>> changing the naming rules for SRV and other RRs, rather than
>> documenting existing practice.
>
>
> John,
>
> Your attempt at clarification is equally confusing to me, since it, too,
> seems to have nothing to do with the current effort.
>
> The effort is to create a registry -- which obviously differs from
> existing practice -- and to have that registry be used, going forward.
> Both the creation and the future use deviate fundamentally from
> 'existing practice'.
>
> d/
>
>

-- 
P Vixie