Re: [DNSOP] Adam Roach's Discuss on draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf-13: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Adam Roach <> Tue, 09 October 2018 18:46 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 008DD1292AD; Tue, 9 Oct 2018 11:46:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.88
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.88 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_SPF_HELO_PERMERROR=0.01, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UQyH8-AF6YVF; Tue, 9 Oct 2018 11:46:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 816A8128D68; Tue, 9 Oct 2018 11:46:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id w99Ijvpr031913 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Tue, 9 Oct 2018 13:45:58 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from
X-Authentication-Warning: Host [] claimed to be
To: Dave Crocker <>, The IESG <>, Warren Kumari <>
Cc: Tim Wicinski <>,,,,
References: <> <>
From: Adam Roach <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2018 13:45:52 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.13; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.2.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Adam Roach's Discuss on draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf-13: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2018 18:46:06 -0000

On 10/9/18 1:22 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:
> On 10/8/2018 10:15 PM, Adam Roach wrote:
>> My top-line concern is that, while the table established by this 
>> document
>> appears to intend to be a strict superset of the Enumservices table, 
>> there are
>> no instructions of any kind to the IANA that would result in these 
>> tables
>> remaining in sync -- that is, when a new service is added to the 
>> "Enumservice
>> Registrations" table, one might presume that it needs to also appear 
>> in the
>> new registry established by this document.
> Adam,
> Ongoing dependence on these other tables was the original model, and 
> for a long time.  It is not the model now.
> A major motivation for making this change was exactly to avoid the 
> synchronization challenge you note. So the round of effort that 
> produced the document split to a base and and a -fix also produced a 
> change in the use of the independent tables.
> The current specification /eliminates/ dependence on these other tables.
> The goal has been to register all the names that are known to be used, 
> from the various other tables, and then modify the specs that were 
> originally written using those other tables to, instead, require 
> making further additions directly and only to the _underscore registry.
> There was quite a bit of discussion about the challenge of 
> synchronization.  This was not helped by the fact that the IANA folk 
> are so accommodating and expressed a willingness to attempt to keep 
> things in sync. However it isn't reasonable to task them with that 
> on-going synchronization effort: it's certain to fail at some point.  
> So instead we eliminated the requirement. 

This is based on an assumption that document authors who add 
enumservices are more likely to notice the need [1] to add their service 
name to two tables than the IANA are. Given the respective levels of 
rigor, that seems like a losing bet.


[1] Given the 100% coverage in the current table (modulo the "web" 
issue, which I continue to suspect to be an error), "need" seems to be 
appropriate here.