Re: [DNSOP] attrleaf

Paul Vixie <paul@redbarn.org> Tue, 28 March 2017 19:34 UTC

Return-Path: <paul@redbarn.org>
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 D7694129A05 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 28 Mar 2017 12:34:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.902
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 gMRBfxwC8VHl for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 28 Mar 2017 12:34:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from family.redbarn.org (family.redbarn.org [IPv6:2001:559:8000:cd::5]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A7C0312956C for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 28 Mar 2017 12:34:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [IPv6:2001:559:8000:c9:50e4:c235:dee1:8442] (unknown [IPv6:2001:559:8000:c9:50e4:c235:dee1:8442]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by family.redbarn.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7B4D061F9D; Tue, 28 Mar 2017 19:34:08 +0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <58DABAAF.9030804@redbarn.org>
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2017 12:34:07 -0700
From: Paul Vixie <paul@redbarn.org>
User-Agent: Postbox 5.0.12 (Windows/20170323)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
CC: "dnsop@ietf.org" <dnsop@ietf.org>
References: <58DA9747.1070405@redbarn.org> <2ec2593d-c5a7-7f0b-c9fb-bcb1fa2d5073@dcrocker.net> <58DAA17D.80504@redbarn.org> <a9d76833-cf74-90e6-fdfa-df95b4b08c0d@dcrocker.net>
In-Reply-To: <a9d76833-cf74-90e6-fdfa-df95b4b08c0d@dcrocker.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/MzPHEfM-zSH2RLRDbzBow7fclY0>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] attrleaf
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, 28 Mar 2017 19:34:13 -0000


Dave Crocker wrote:
> On 3/28/2017 12:46 PM, Paul Vixie wrote:
>> i don't think it's wise to estimate damage by observed complain level.
>> if _ is now in world wide use for all kinds of stuff, you can still say
>> that SRV got it wrong, and that the recommended way to do this kind of
>> thing is different from what SRV did. you could also do what a lot of
>> operating system developers had to do about _ use with C, which is use
>> two underscores in the next design, whose use will be better policed.
> 
> 
> Hmmm.  So, I missed that you were targeting the narrower issue of SRV,
> per se, rather than the broader (and shallower) task of attrleaf.

no, i wasn't. i'd like any new SRV-like protocol to learn from SRV's
mistakes rather than following in SRV's footsteps. i don't propose to
alter where new SRV protocols/services should have their rendezvous'.

-- 
P Vixie