Re: [DNSOP] Eric Rescorla's No Objection on draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf-13: (with COMMENT)

[Eric Rescorla <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 1:18 PM Dave Crocker <[e-mail]> 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
>