Re: [DNSOP] request for adoption

> On 13 Nov 2018, at 5:03 pm, Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca> wrote:
> 
> On Mon, 12 Nov 2018, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
> 
>> we would like to ask the working group to adopt the following I-D as a
>> WG item:
>> 
>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lhotka-dnsop-iana-class-type-yang-00
> 
> I'll leave that call up to the chairs bit it sounds like a good idea.
> 
> I have reviewed the document.
> 
> First, the yand model is correct in the draft. But unfortunately, the IANA registry
> itself has flaws.
> 
> I am also confused by the difference between deprecated and obsoleted. I guess the
> yang model interprets the IANA regitry, but the registry has no official column
> designation for this. I wonder if it should be given one. I also then suggest that
> the terms obsoleted and deprecated be merged into one term.
> 
> I see some RRTYPES are listed as EXPERIMENTAL in the IANA registry while these are
> really OBSOLETED. I wonder if we can do a quick draft that moves those to HISTORIC,
> so this yang model can use the proper "obsoleted" entry for these. I am referring to:
> 
> MB 	7 	a mailbox domain name (EXPERIMENTAL) 	[RFC1035] MG 	8 	a mail group member (EXPERIMENTAL) 	[RFC1035] MR 	9 	a mail rename domain name (EXPERIMENTAL) 	[RFC1035]
> 
> RP 	17 	for Responsible Person
> 
> X25 	19 	for X.25 PSDN address
> 
> ISDN 	20 	for ISDN address 	[RFC1183] RT 	21 	for Route Through 	[RFC1183] NSAP 	22 	for NSAP address, NSAP style A record 	[RFC1706] NSAP-PTR 	23 	for domain name pointer, NSAP style
> 
> PX 	26 	X.400 mail mapping information 	[RFC2163] GPOS 	27 	Geographical Position 	[RFC1712]
> 
> KX 	36 	Key Exchanger 	[RFC2230]
> 
> A6 	38 	A6 (OBSOLETE - use AAAA)
> 
> DLV 	32769 	DNSSEC Lookaside Validation

DLV isn’t obsolete.  The registry ISC published is gone but anyone can publish their own
registry.

> The following entries are deprecated or obsoleted by an RFC, but not marked as such in the IANA
> registry:
> 
> AFSDB 	18 	for AFS Data Base location  	[RFC1183][RFC5864]
> SIG 	24 	for security signature 	[RFC4034][RFC3755][RFC2535][RFC2536][RFC2537][RFC2931][RFC3110][RFC3008] KEY 	25 	for security key 	[RFC4034][RFC3755][RFC2535][RFC2536][RFC2537][RFC2539][RFC3008][RFC3110]

SIG is NOT OBSOLETE.  It is used for SIG(0).  It’s use *for DNSSEC* is obsolete.
KEY is NOT OBSOLETE.  It is used for SIG(0).  It’s use *for DNSSEC* is obsolete.

> NXT 	30 	Next Domain (OBSOLETE)
> 
> 
> (Odd how NXT is marked obsolete but not SIG or KEY. These are a set and should be treated the same)
> 
> (I'm skipping NULL, MINFO/HINFO on purpose to due Olafur :)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NITS:
> 
> It seems that the IANA address in Section 3 implies Canada (CA) or more likely suffers
> from the assumption that no country specified means "United States". Please specify
> the country :)
> 
> Paul
> 
> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list
> DNSOP@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop

-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742              INTERNET: marka@isc.org