Re: [DNSOP] [apps-discuss] Draft of interest in DNSOP: draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf

Dave Crocker <> Mon, 06 March 2017 00:46 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A76BE1288B8 for <>; Sun, 5 Mar 2017 16:46:47 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.002
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.002 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9olXq6M6ep9K for <>; Sun, 5 Mar 2017 16:46:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CD61D124281 for <>; Sun, 5 Mar 2017 16:46:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] ( []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.14.4/8.14.4/Debian-4.1ubuntu1) with ESMTP id v260mPMa012814 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Sun, 5 Mar 2017 16:48:25 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;; s=default; t=1488761306; bh=yVG3xk1TAj3umyvkJLuEUVvaagVTK39v8FhK22NtRBg=; h=Subject:To:References:Cc:From:Reply-To:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=LRVIg93Qc+EgakEFGnChJ/1thu0G/tyNb1LbAULDi6EacQtRZ1BO3QWHfPA581/Rw jSsEd4J0pefWoNGzq5Dgw+VItuAMcoYT77fLNVBIPSxedzQS17YmvMdWvxGZ4qtTaw 3dfpE4u0csePKoXIqvbHeOjRKPpJir/jn5PqmWoU=
To: dnsop <>
References: <20160804015840.60405.qmail@ary.lan> <> <>
From: Dave Crocker <>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
Message-ID: <>
Date: Sun, 05 Mar 2017 16:46:16 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.7.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] [apps-discuss] Draft of interest in DNSOP: draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2017 00:46:47 -0000

Hi, folks,

I've been reminded that the attrleaf draft is still pending.  I've 
re-submitted the -00 draft as -01, just to restart the timer on the 

On reviewing the discussion history, I see some items for the list that 
I believe weren't resolved...

On 8/28/2016 4:04 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:
>>> For URI records RFC 7553 says they're either named the same as SRV
>>> records, or they use enumservice names from the Enumservice
>> Declaring a namespace as the union of two, independently-maintained
>> registries is a very efficient way to encourage -- actually in
>> theoretical terms, it guarantees -- collisions.
> Patrik's and John 's postings notwithstanding, I'm still concerned about
> the proposed way of handling this, namely to rely on IANA to do a manual
> check of the two registries the URI RR might call on.  First, it does
> not seem reasonable to me to impose that burden on the IANA staff and
> second a manual process like that is almost certain to produce errors.

This needs discussion and resolution by the working group.

Again, my concern is with handing IANA an on-going task -- making a 
check every time they update the Attrleaf table -- that requires their 
being perfect at detecting collisions with one or more other tables.

If the wg decides this is acceptable, I'd like to document the basis for 
the decision.

> On 8/3/2016 9:05 PM, John R Levine wrote:
>> I suppose, but since the two registries exist and the URI RFC says to
>> use both of them as _name, that horse has left the barn.
> I think it left the theoretical barn, but not the practical one.  We've
> been told that there is not yet any uptake in the URI RR.  That makes it
> plausible to modify its spec to eliminate this problem.

Can we get a working group assessment of the real-world uptake of the 

> Really, the burden of trying to have on-going coordination for the URI
> RR, between two different registries is worth finding a way to avoid.
> The problem is that I am not sure what to suggest that will work for URI
> usage.
> Suggestions?

Suggestions are still solicited.


Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking