Re: [DNSOP] Registry of non-service _prefix names and draft-crocker-dns-attrleaf-07

"John Levine" <> Sat, 14 November 2015 20:29 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E3C581AD0AD for <>; Sat, 14 Nov 2015 12:29:09 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.663
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.663 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id iNS7PysTIzhs for <>; Sat, 14 Nov 2015 12:29:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:470:1f06:1126::2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 02D9E1AD0B7 for <>; Sat, 14 Nov 2015 12:29:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 11035 invoked from network); 14 Nov 2015 20:29:06 -0000
Received: from unknown ( by with QMQP; 14 Nov 2015 20:29:06 -0000
Date: Sat, 14 Nov 2015 20:28:44 -0000
Message-ID: <20151114202844.9601.qmail@ary.lan>
From: John Levine <>
In-Reply-To: <>
X-Headerized: yes
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Registry of non-service _prefix names and draft-crocker-dns-attrleaf-07
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 14 Nov 2015 20:29:10 -0000

>This will be the third or fourth try for the document.  Perhaps there is
>now enough community interest to make it happen?

The more I look at this, the more of a mess I find.  It's not like it
would have been all up to you.  RFC 6335 came out five years after the
first version of your draft and would have been a fine opportunity to

Assuming the places in the draft where you refer to the left-most name
you mean the right-most name for what gets registered, it needs to
make clear what names enable what sub-names.

For example, if a name is _tcp or _udp, all of the names in the RFC
6335 service name registry are eligible.  This includes _soap-beep and
_xmlrpc-beep which are in that registry, and _certificates and _crls
which should be but aren't.  But RFC 2782 is pretty casual about what
protocols other than _tcp and _udp correspond to SRV names.  IANA has
a protocol registry at
but a lot of the entries are not obvious candidates for SRV.  On the
other hand, RFC 5509 makes _sip a SRV protocol name even though it's
also a service.

DKIM currently allows _adsp as a subtag, probably not worth making a
registry, since there don't seem to be any other likely DKIM subtags.
Similarly there's _report._dmarc which seems to be a one-off.