IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] Registry of non-service _prefix names?

Dave Crocker <dhc2@dcrocker.net> Sun, 29 November 2015 16:59 UTC

Return-Path: <dhc2@dcrocker.net>
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 330071A0A85 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 29 Nov 2015 08:59:54 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.5
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.5 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] autolearn=ham
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 laeZOmCpngya for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 29 Nov 2015 08:59:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 474FD1A07BD for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Sun, 29 Nov 2015 08:59:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.87] (76-218-10-206.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net [76.218.10.206]) (authenticated bits=0) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id tATGxjmp027085 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Sun, 29 Nov 2015 08:59:45 -0800
References: <20151113180033.4668.qmail@ary.lan> <5646DB90.30804@bellis.me.uk> <56476A62.5070201@dcrocker.net> <5649965A.1000106@bellis.me.uk>
To: Ray Bellis <ray@bellis.me.uk>
From: Dave Crocker <dhc2@dcrocker.net>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
Message-ID: <565B2F01.1040009@dcrocker.net>
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2015 08:59:45 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <5649965A.1000106@bellis.me.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]); Sun, 29 Nov 2015 08:59:46 -0800 (PST)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/VT5w_AWd1DskFAPgM3aezW1JPvA>
Cc: dnsop@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Registry of non-service _prefix names?
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
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: Sun, 29 Nov 2015 16:59:54 -0000

On 11/16/2015 12:39 AM, Ray Bellis wrote:
>>From my previous recollection of this, ISTR there was a suggestion that
> your draft only directly register "single-label" names, but with "_tcp",
> "_udp" et al listed in the registry as a link to RFC 6335?


(oops.  missed the need to respond to this.)

It's taken awhile, but I've finally come around to thinking that, yes,
the public registry needs to be only for the 'global' part of any of
these namespaces.  I originally attempted to cover a complete hierarchy
of underscore names, but the term "tar baby" isn't sufficient to impart
how intractable that became.

So in DNS terms, that's the 'highest' underscore name.  Anything below
them is scoped to be invisible to the public concern.


d/
-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net

v2.15.0 | Report a Bug | By Email