IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] SRV-related _underscore registry (was Re: Call for Adoption: draft-crocker-dns-attrleaf)

Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com> Mon, 29 February 2016 22:58 UTC

Return-Path: <hallam@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 29DED1A0083 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 Feb 2016 14:58:48 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.278
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.278 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
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 K-FiaJBlSGNC for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 Feb 2016 14:58:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-lb0-x236.google.com (mail-lb0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c04::236]) (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 DCCE61A007E for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Mon, 29 Feb 2016 14:58:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-lb0-x236.google.com with SMTP id bc4so89057983lbc.2 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Mon, 29 Feb 2016 14:58:46 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc; bh=hEssJzghRl+S5u/gLfZgCBNKUAaotBOnRyue7+B7+yk=; b=c95RFpJf5Nf0w1aY3OFRkEvDBr519IvnBZzvAeUuspqOVn28wIwqe3gTbOHnCzQWgv LWg5Z3EjZZKEN5334Dyci+LvHGMiXG8RMFg0w34bCsFP2cGwkCi8K5LofNVYWEcwErdH 5jgfySuVCtoalvof/lFAyItS3WogvX6iDq/GOJuKaFizGpyIceTQZnmpnWMYYl0HjFvH zbYIHsG3yxFm+iR0cZoO9wUByvrRgjRTApsLwpRSOS4D41VgfnsiyRHObngHFp+5tkbx 3elOQUryb9fHxSLcspeGPF5+QM0rwS+rTBACcvnQsAyzIsrxg1hMyEcmPTeuuRwycdDT HZig==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc; bh=hEssJzghRl+S5u/gLfZgCBNKUAaotBOnRyue7+B7+yk=; b=EcTCxiODlWN6ZXdQxZTy4gn5fzXPcPcchKyi7hTWvsziTupOl2XJCtgkrWEZnVO7Dw mSkSnuxBHoIJF3lcD6mUAz4JFc1hginjARygcn9EG2EuW8pPb3y/zjipy+CSs3XN7XO4 gW2WCQRCGn0dHJFFzufmGlTdMvv84/MpyEcCmhdsPawjZpLUYwjEClWGEBrjBkmWmM81 o7m9DPMia65JxJhKD8bxQhZszKw5m8WRlo5db9K7ry4gBKyQ8qydd0HCTx5iaeoNd/Q+ 8nAXllt+pVXPPviQbvu9h9C5Vrs4CKgGKTOhCzTL+pDvBeOFfs6k2PwWWTh4rrNeQGhW m4VQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AD7BkJK3gJ0ozWZZc0tYo5su4FjP3W4jvDw1FMMXbJMHYuhbo3Ei2sAS1EXoxxDSoYWgw8vpHdclBFd9h/06vQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.112.72.101 with SMTP id c5mr6615048lbv.112.1456786725102; Mon, 29 Feb 2016 14:58:45 -0800 (PST)
Sender: hallam@gmail.com
Received: by 10.112.151.67 with HTTP; Mon, 29 Feb 2016 14:58:45 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <56D4C70A.2050701@bellis.me.uk>
References: <20160229180756.55888.qmail@ary.lan> <56D4BEB3.3060409@dcrocker.net> <alpine.OSX.2.11.1602291705250.30909@ary.lan> <56D4C70A.2050701@bellis.me.uk>
Date: Mon, 29 Feb 2016 17:58:45 -0500
X-Google-Sender-Auth: K9Y5O-OYd7qvKoiwS8VWDdjLyRg
Message-ID: <CAMm+LwguY1m1xYVVrcOPG6Riy_NzwVBZRHF6Vq8YZSQ+xCe+Yg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com>
To: Ray Bellis <ray@bellis.me.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/S4BjUBSkBXd-wp4DXX881eNFHRU>
Cc: "dnsop@ietf.org" <dnsop@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] SRV-related _underscore registry (was Re: Call for Adoption: draft-crocker-dns-attrleaf)
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Mon, 29 Feb 2016 22:58:48 -0000

On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 5:32 PM, Ray Bellis <ray@bellis.me.uk> wrote:
>
>
> On 29/02/2016 22:27, John R Levine wrote:
>
>> The existing port and service registry already has all of the _service
>> names, and is updated as people invent new services.  What's the benefit
>> of duplicating it rather than just pointing to it?
>
> +1
>
> [and this is pretty much the proposal I made to Dave back in Orlando...]

+1

The use of the Service registry is pretty well established now and it
is the right model.

Creating additional registries is not something that should be
encouraged unless the registry is describing a new type of resource
that doesn't have a registry already.

The proliferation of cryptographic algorithm registries is not at all
helpful. I was rather peeved that the JOSE people were allowed to
create yet another registry for algorithm label names rather than
reuse the PEM registry. When you look at code that supports multiple
cryptographic applications, there are endless layers of code managing
tagging and bagging.

I would really like to see the .well-known registry killed off as well
and folded into the services registry. If you have a Web Service with
SRV prefix _mmm then the .well-known prefix should be .well-known/mmm/


If you have two registries for the same thing you are creating
unnecessary opportunities for ambiguity and inconsistency.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email