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

Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> Fri, 23 March 2018 18:29 UTC

Return-Path: <ajs@anvilwalrusden.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 9FA2012DA23; Fri, 23 Mar 2018 11:29:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=yitter.info header.b=G4ugLief; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=yitter.info header.b=gm+Y15q1
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 hnFEsKhu2MRF; Fri, 23 Mar 2018 11:29:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx4.yitter.info (mx4.yitter.info [159.203.56.111]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2888112D889; Fri, 23 Mar 2018 11:29:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx4.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTP id 657E2BE780; Fri, 23 Mar 2018 18:28:51 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yitter.info; s=default; t=1521829731; bh=rgim8lZsQrnK5iPboFNyOdbi0SllgP+AyDF5YP2cSV4=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=G4ugLiefgta2+RSRefH2Y+xn2MDcyyYLH3keRDszadh3L1TBaxWJB0SVYZcgEh83z LnSyEGoDzG/LtOFLJMSlXBZgElPWPFIA6oLrS5wLiQsfUbpIhdZ6pdIjZuaqTiNaFE XGzHRgZLqmZoZTZIBCttLYbo8Fv4/gFs7HIhJV7o=
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at crankycanuck.ca
Received: from mx4.yitter.info ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mx4.yitter.info [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0WfHUS7xPzjI; Fri, 23 Mar 2018 18:28:50 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2018 14:28:47 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yitter.info; s=default; t=1521829730; bh=rgim8lZsQrnK5iPboFNyOdbi0SllgP+AyDF5YP2cSV4=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=gm+Y15q1BjvaDh7R2wi8QaZVIf/qGs8UcBL+Ag1L0gipfP2M9m8fDSiIqn9ESUmfh CXidet1N8c9QtMdy0o+MtS9l+1setrZZidomfo1tAIfeL/kO90Z8PCC3bRwHkjrdXe Y3Mvv8gs8ToPEYzkBzN28EKd807UWBi1g4sD4x/U=
From: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
To: art@ietf.org, dnsop@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20180323182846.3tzuhrzzirsj23zj@mx4.yitter.info>
References: <6d3c77a3-2326-a4b4-1e99-50fe4647d7c8@dcrocker.net> <20180323180248.9B2AD238892C@ary.iecc.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20180323180248.9B2AD238892C@ary.iecc.com>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/JZ8Uvh9ClZFYli67M7eU6lDP2UA>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] [art] New Version Notification for draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf-03.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: Fri, 23 Mar 2018 18:29:24 -0000

On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 06:02:47PM +0000, John Levine wrote:
> 
> I see a message on dnsop from you proposing a bunch of things
> including "rationalizing" names, and comments from Andrew and Peter
> saying they like that approach.

I think, to be clear, what I was saying I liked was the document
splitting.  This is because I sent Dave feedback on his original
approach back a decade or so ago, worried about how the registry won't
really be possible because of the multiple levels and so on.

The basic problem is that underscore labels are a mess and needed a
registry to begin with.  

> A good way to rationalize them would be to document the the rules in
> one place with pointers to the relevant registries.

I would be willing to review additional proposals (including that one)
for how to make this whole thing less of a disaster, yes.

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs@anvilwalrusden.com