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

Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net> Tue, 20 March 2018 16:49 UTC

Return-Path: <dhc@dcrocker.net>
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 7416D12778D for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Mar 2018 09:49:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=dcrocker.net
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 H2WOYHbklQE0 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Mar 2018 09:49:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from simon.songbird.com (simon.songbird.com [72.52.113.5]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1B0C81270A7 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 20 Mar 2018 09:49:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.168] (76-218-8-128.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net [76.218.8.128]) (authenticated bits=0) by simon.songbird.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/Debian-4.1ubuntu1) with ESMTP id w2KGoqsI022203 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 20 Mar 2018 09:50:53 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=dcrocker.net; s=default; t=1521564653; bh=e76aXPQILeBXfpJ2ldsk3UXv+eBWUrJNK7UhE5H/guw=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Reply-To:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=VUftcSZ+WXYYTB9hBOD+MjamK4l89U0nN/FUpcDMItN8J9+uRZnIw/T2SS9PP25xg pVCfsp2n/WdKKdUHbw21FTuWxiYtj+wgDjZk7S+jW2nW7/bgWf0j6IzEyyT5l9Yj5x S+eGdB2W6xZe96/3Uu3CMAxwx4ZO8PUXsAqeEk0k=
To: "John R. Levine" <johnl@iecc.com>
Cc: dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>
References: <152150434726.9747.3586273536264334521.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <f7b85bac-b050-5003-2df0-a48b1ef2f929@dcrocker.net> <alpine.OSX.2.21.1803201614180.8721@dhcp-8344.meeting.ietf.org>
From: Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
Message-ID: <b80d277b-7f3e-ef6a-2080-527311925b01@dcrocker.net>
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2018 09:49:26 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <alpine.OSX.2.21.1803201614180.8721@dhcp-8344.meeting.ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/LfPb1dPUap4_VyHkWTIDpqrnoMU>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Fwd: 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: Tue, 20 Mar 2018 16:49:36 -0000

On 3/20/2018 9:31 AM, John R. Levine wrote:
>> -03 defines two registries, 'global' and 'second-level'.  I'm 
>> suspicious of how short the global one is, though it does make sense.
> 
> It's missing _dmarc, and the type names from the Enumservice registry 
> which are used to name URI records.

_dmarc.  thanks.

as for enumservice, see below.



>> 2. SRV and URI
...
> We need to change the description of the second level name registry to 
> say that SRV and URI are special, they use names from Ports and Services 
> at the second level and URI uses enumservice subtypes, and take out all 
> of the SRV entries.  What's left is the grabbag of second level names 
> used for other stuff like NAPTR and _adsp._domainkey.

No.  "Special" invites "errors", for on-going administration and 
operations.  I'm trying to make things simpler and less tangled.

We need to move away from the complexity created by having special rules 
for some entries in the registry.

Rather, we need to change the documents that are trying to be special 
to, instead, make them be mundane.  Hence the need for detailed text 
changes in the proposed, second draft.

d/

ps.  I thought the URI RR had no current actual use (or at least very 
little.)

-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net