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

"John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com> Tue, 24 July 2018 14:58 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@iecc.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 ADD0C130E96 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Jul 2018 07:58:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.75
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.75 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.d=iecc.com header.b=BARtIixk; dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.d=taugh.com header.b=XdZFW6Al
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 sO8FJxcpUHJh for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Jul 2018 07:58:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:43:6f73:7461]) (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 2E791130EA5 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 24 Jul 2018 07:58:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 91112 invoked from network); 24 Jul 2018 14:58:45 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=163e4.5b573ea5.k1807; bh=tJbrjtTuHl41DT5mqqspzRt+0O4WD1l4yje0Bf0oYKQ=; b=BARtIixk7WOlqSGip05HlnzDRnOvNHbrII2I0IjseRXKCd7NhOYuAsNl7MTqtMdvAx/H/7zL3r/mJbbfpmk/i705pAehj7t9qV5AW8Yd75jYrLCDjN7PjKhT1zBWGK2pJ19hzVIqaBZL5vFrrb0twi9hlj7nsRW8g3wstBimAA94LPJovf9TkXpXcXL7MlpJFRMgIHhS73Jzc23E+nr+0uYPFogoWk9uH3sgEUqvYdmnJENaawqzIhPThjyohpFd
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=163e4.5b573ea5.k1807; bh=tJbrjtTuHl41DT5mqqspzRt+0O4WD1l4yje0Bf0oYKQ=; b=XdZFW6AlrJKkJnNA1H20QQPtuGvan8WS94qvHFj/5Hf0Y23BzCAXWztiGDVsZKt/t5+OBugdg47LH54CuAftl1poMuO8XWkx3a2vJ3s5QHNdTDvPi5cgC9OW+qXFkEIeX+dfoHS6M9sGKBBFJbDVY1x5Yod5hk8oIFBE5q7tQOJwobiJlGABd9jR1dX8nmfWPP8ksmsyJKx4AsitxHRV2xrIoybSQStYuPEpEN5GtVHXttxZu/+3JQMXOzbscHOW
Received: from ary.qy ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) by imap.iecc.com ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) with ESMTP via TCP6; 24 Jul 2018 14:58:45 -0000
Received: by ary.qy (Postfix, from userid 501) id 1FB912002CE945; Tue, 24 Jul 2018 10:58:44 -0400 (EDT)
Date: 24 Jul 2018 10:58:44 -0400
Message-Id: <20180724145845.1FB912002CE945@ary.qy>
From: "John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com>
To: dnsop@ietf.org
Cc: mats.dufberg@iis.se
In-Reply-To: <9DA145F4-DF6A-4BFA-B3C9-56027B228050@iis.se>
Organization: Taughannock Networks
X-Headerized: yes
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/MG06UUJkzfNEviJsUPeD6skoaYY>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf-12.txt
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27
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, 24 Jul 2018 14:58:49 -0000

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.

R's,
John