Re: [DNSOP] Eric Rescorla's No Objection on draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf-13: (with COMMENT)
Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> Wed, 10 October 2018 20:27 UTC
Return-Path: <ekr@rtfm.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 518F4127B92 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Oct 2018 13:27:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=rtfm-com.20150623.gappssmtp.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 NYyvyxNak3f1 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Oct 2018 13:27:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lj1-x22e.google.com (mail-lj1-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::22e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 89C571277BB for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Wed, 10 Oct 2018 13:27:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lj1-x22e.google.com with SMTP id j4-v6so6100515ljc.12 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Wed, 10 Oct 2018 13:27:31 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=rtfm-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=0e39CLnlPX8qV8UnlNqAeB4UEuyKN3zhiiCzu5L856U=; b=ByHO0AUwZ9bBHzl68JDH1oVgWikqP5+IQ7rn51NsFKL1QDq4gpS3JPW7orc5hP4cIu 4UZoxveyavc5w1PGlxkpAvp4VKMemkiNV7J/OAwELXQG2GZ4yC2YvaHsv7NfVi1P2TmW pA3oLiRikyaANi3oKW2hYLDxhxrfkmmiroNm/O/F0P+nzSm/mUiJV7xTUMpmvGQ9hYco z4L3hwB0TH+O5a2wYROlBGJN+a4NOPvWpcgW3nnYtPgs/70x/LQHYMiuZhjxd+k8V7+u QIkt5FCY7tLtWhzmlHhbT4eIXv8qE2wm52mL1s3uu+eto3FLyNFIDmCEmbh/iWHFyKRv 00qA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=0e39CLnlPX8qV8UnlNqAeB4UEuyKN3zhiiCzu5L856U=; b=iVsDd7gLLoo3/02RBLPp+ckBRoUvSrEJbzvpAklDpw14VBrStoIlermxjuJ5oOVXOK 89kaTd+lKvrRCOSAuEHpMo/oZKuRdA7SmdSsmlukzmwuuToB6bxTMT7sjEqvVK82srou V2532Urc459suB9QLgQiLby2TNcyxf97Xrqol7LRSxL6ZX0gzmeTuG86pdXkvIrt6LTc GNdJgYpwWwW5HrxmU6+HV8z9T3jKnZOBclT6i8WDyl0hYXxTpXILezSYDQsA/m7U1IXw SdLUE+Pg+5rd/SoNOVbYTDYdEgrCn6/nEnWOI8BNp29YtQ4pAsdizdYupzXGRUqdKuAN zE9g==
X-Gm-Message-State: ABuFfojDEviSD1S6X8yvuc0kzdCwIqigFia8q/Bjoa2EQrGMvaE5kfxX v0LeOgBG06qjrt9y8CzsKZT+UR1vkuEt7GfZXPxvmg==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACcGV612Mgs3C93l5kzKzkETwXFuHOCjL8tJ35HYXwNHRDrsNefP5DlFFl1py5lCIJxrp4oc+DbwNN9AljPPXOF1vyA=
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:2a43:: with SMTP id q64-v6mr6257902ljq.153.1539203249619; Wed, 10 Oct 2018 13:27:29 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <153912741495.10634.9667308743378893802.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <0769c6b5-2a2f-ef9a-3261-60635bb1592b@dcrocker.net>
In-Reply-To: <0769c6b5-2a2f-ef9a-3261-60635bb1592b@dcrocker.net>
From: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2018 13:26:56 -0700
Message-ID: <CABcZeBM14jjSHFzSLtUG_9G8FVT6+x8pGwLiQwej_wmUh1dMsg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Dave Crocket <dhc@dcrocker.net>
Cc: IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf@ietf.org, dnsop-chairs <dnsop-chairs@ietf.org>, benno@nlnetlabs.nl, dnsop WG <dnsop@ietf.org>, Tim Wicinski <tjw.ietf@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000ee579b0577e5aece"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/Rwdz2tHNn60qMo-z51xUttQZYvo>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Eric Rescorla's No Objection on draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf-13: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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, 10 Oct 2018 20:27:35 -0000
On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 1:18 PM Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net> wrote: > Eric, > > On 10/9/2018 7:23 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote: > >> However some services have defined an operational convention, > which > >> applies to DNS leaf nodes that are under a DNS branch having one > or > >> more reserved node names, each beginning with an _underscore. The > >> underscored naming construct defines a semantic scope for DNS > record > >> types that are associated with the parent domain, above the > >> underscored branch. This specification explores the nature of > this > > > > This text is a bit hard to parse for the layman. Here's my attempted > > rewrite, which captures what I think this means. > > > > Conventionally, this construct associates data with the parent domain, > > with the underscored label instead denoting the type of the data. > > > > I'm not sure if that helps, but perhaps something along these lines? > > Yeah, this has been an oddly challenging bit of text to formulate. > Perhaps: > > However some services use an operational convention for defining > specific interpretations of an RRset, by locating the records in a DNS > branch, under the parent domain to which the RRset actually applies. > The top of this subordinate branch is defined by a naming convention > that uses a reserved node name, which begins with an _underscore. > Sure, this seems fine. > > S 1.1. > >> > >> 1.1. Underscore Scoping > >> > >> As an alternative to defining a new RR type, some DNS service > >> enhancements call for using an existing resource record type, but > >> specify a restricted scope for its occurrence. Scope is meant as > a > > > > I think I get why you are saying "scope" here, but it's kind of not > > that good fit with the programming concepts of scope as I am familiar > > with. > > So I took your concern as an excuse to review the CS definition and > find that I still think its application here is appropriate... And it > has not seemed to cause confusion for others. > OK, well I don't think I agree, but this is a non-blocking comment, so I don't think there's much point in continuing to debate it. -Ekr > > > S 2. > >> +----------------------------+ > >> > >> Examples of Underscored Names > >> > >> Only global underscored names are registered in the IANA > Underscore > >> Global table. > > > > so just for clarify, in the examples above, only _service[1-4] and > > _authority would need to be registered? > > Yes. (And I've added a sentence noting that point, for clarity. Thanks.) > > d/ > > > -- > Dave Crocker > Brandenburg InternetWorking > bbiw.net > > -- > Dave Crocker > Brandenburg InternetWorking > bbiw.net >
- [DNSOP] Eric Rescorla's No Objection on draft-iet… Eric Rescorla
- Re: [DNSOP] Eric Rescorla's No Objection on draft… Dave Crocker
- Re: [DNSOP] Eric Rescorla's No Objection on draft… Eric Rescorla