Return-Path: 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 ; 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 ; 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 ; 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 User-Agent: Postbox 5.0.12 (Windows/20170323) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dcrocker@bbiw.net CC: "dnsop@ietf.org" References: <58DA9747.1070405@redbarn.org> <2ec2593d-c5a7-7f0b-c9fb-bcb1fa2d5073@dcrocker.net> <58DAA17D.80504@redbarn.org> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: Subject: Re: [DNSOP] attrleaf X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-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