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

"John R. Levine" <johnl@iecc.com> Tue, 20 March 2018 16:31 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@iecc.com>
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 02B18127601 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Mar 2018 09:31:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.011
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.011 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.d=iecc.com
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 okWs6avUdYE7 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Mar 2018 09:31:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:43:6f73:7461]) (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 3FE11126C0F for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 20 Mar 2018 09:31:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 24273 invoked from network); 20 Mar 2018 16:31:38 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type:user-agent; s=5ecf.5ab1376a.k1803; bh=G08qcGOdMXr2jwzjIbZT6BNDie/6zQmGLmbnTf2UBR0=; b=Vng4fOWpXf5R+HV5Evg8noTZCsPlP2Zhxcgs2BMICs4y6GaoMou1XWOrMAFjTIe/IbAKj7FNH1CnV221IYLqVlY7yzEfOSOnuQsJ3ny10CzhyLi/vUHPgKXpCXE8+vEcUdBVCxswJdWB+VuCuzIYNF/G/KGWInrOzWcPRETRJ+d7JD+DbdS3cCWYibWWiACB2Pb5rNhYt0cw9BM5ciqYq8IuUTw1mX0tmury3K/pUlW3Q59nTWX9s4dCdjqF/Red
Received: from localhost ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) by imap.iecc.com ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) with ESMTPS (TLS1.2/X.509/AEAD) via TCP6; 20 Mar 2018 16:31:38 -0000
Date: 20 Mar 2018 16:31:36 +0000
Message-ID: <alpine.OSX.2.21.1803201614180.8721@dhcp-8344.meeting.ietf.org>
From: "John R. Levine" <johnl@iecc.com>
To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
Cc: "dnsop" <dnsop@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <f7b85bac-b050-5003-2df0-a48b1ef2f929@dcrocker.net>
References: <152150434726.9747.3586273536264334521.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <f7b85bac-b050-5003-2df0-a48b1ef2f929@dcrocker.net>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.21 (OSX 202 2017-01-01)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/P6aCaGthaPqoSRmFZbv2z4--tJQ>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Fwd: 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: Tue, 20 Mar 2018 16:31:41 -0000

> -03 defines two registries, 'global' and 'second-level'.  I'm suspicious of 
> how short the global one is, though it does make sense.

It's missing _dmarc, and the type names from the Enumservice registry 
which are used to name URI records.

> 2. SRV and URI
>
>   These need more detailed text, very much in the s/old/new style.
>
>   The current text in them does a use-by-reference of existing tables 
> defined for other purposes.  The Update text will, instead, specify a 
> requirement for adding entries in the Global or Common Second-Level 
> registries.

The second level registry, though, is a problem, because it tries to 
redefine the naming rules for SRV records.  RFC 2782 said that SRV second 
level names are from the services in Assiged Numbers STD 2.  RFC 3400 
abolished STD 2 in favor of an IANA registry.  That registry, the Service 
Name and Transport Protocol Port Number Registry, was cleaned up by RFC 
6335 which reiterates the fact that the service names in that registry are 
the services used to name SRV records.  RFC 7335 states that URI records 
are named the same as SRV, and also says you can use enumservice 
_subtype._type.

We need to change the description of the second level name registry to say 
that SRV and URI are special, they use names from Ports and Services at 
the second level and URI uses enumservice subtypes, and take out all of 
the SRV entries.  What's left is the grabbag of second level names 
used for other stuff like NAPTR and _adsp._domainkey.

R's,
John