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

Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net> Wed, 21 March 2018 13:05 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 4E721127522; Wed, 21 Mar 2018 06:05:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 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, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 38lHbY9XQGmS; Wed, 21 Mar 2018 06:05:36 -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 910D512DA1C; Wed, 21 Mar 2018 06:05:32 -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 w2LD6n0W007814 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 21 Mar 2018 06:06:50 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=dcrocker.net; s=default; t=1521637610; bh=mOwJwi9JEjxjan2pvcnbBcesAh4/0UmD5vho0f5slm8=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:Reply-To:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=NGyOAvLK/NOjvj/xT+c00ictAecruXh1ghvdkyVeqmFTernAFfGRLIGRDw2AB/D23 bZlQxU/DAzvEYm/HYhbcMdkRUzym+ooK3yJ8DAi3VkG/nPnEhXB9PvFOpQvvKc0qGB J1jrDO5UTaGZ5nPhzyzmtLsryoiyoTeY+ddeZQmc=
To: "John R. Levine" <johnl@iecc.com>
Cc: art@ietf.org, dnsop@ietf.org
References: <f7b85bac-b050-5003-2df0-a48b1ef2f929@dcrocker.net> <e1f41670-ada8-eaac-468c-c712b338a10b@dcrocker.net> <alpine.OSX.2.21.1803201804440.8940@dhcp-8344.meeting.ietf.org> <A7711F58-5145-49E8-9158-B2F94D0EABBF@redbarn.org> <7c168dc1-2ea7-d47e-78b7-0380e5d0aa84@dcrocker.net> <alpine.OSX.2.21.1803211104210.9553@ary.local>
Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
From: Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
Message-ID: <5244d327-f8ea-1590-c663-1d92e0b194c4@dcrocker.net>
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2018 06:05:22 -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.2.21.1803211104210.9553@ary.local>
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/OOKB6Le2dqyCJ8TGyVBZ_n6508s>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] [art] 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: Wed, 21 Mar 2018 13:05:37 -0000

On 3/21/2018 4:05 AM, John R. Levine wrote:
>>>  Harmonization for the sake of harmonization is bad, and very little
>>>  Internet System technology gets it. Just do new stuff better.
>>
>> I agree completely. So please forgive my not understanding how your 
>> first and third comments are relevant to the current topic, which 
>> pertains to ensuring that new behaviors use the new model.
> 
> I'm not Paul, but I'm guessing that he is referring to retroactively 
> changing the naming rules for SRV and other RRs, rather than documenting 
> existing practice.


John,

Your attempt at clarification is equally confusing to me, since it, too, 
seems to have nothing to do with the current effort.

The effort is to create a registry -- which obviously differs from 
existing practice -- and to have that registry be used, going forward. 
Both the creation and the future use deviate fundamentally from 
'existing practice'.

d/


-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net