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

Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net> Mon, 06 March 2017 00:46 UTC

Return-Path: <dhc@dcrocker.net>
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 A76BE1288B8 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 5 Mar 2017 16:46:47 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.002
X-Spam-Level:
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: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=dcrocker.net
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 9olXq6M6ep9K for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 5 Mar 2017 16:46:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from simon.songbird.com (simon.songbird.com [72.52.113.5]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CD61D124281 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Sun, 5 Mar 2017 16:46:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.11.211] (50.sub-166-154-63.myvzw.com [166.154.63.50]) (authenticated bits=0) by simon.songbird.com (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; d=dcrocker.net; 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 <dnsop@ietf.org>
References: <20160804015840.60405.qmail@ary.lan> <dd070788-bf7a-e7de-b07b-b81151f101db@dcrocker.net> <1073c89f-1158-ccde-df02-ae9a416eacf5@bbiw.net>
From: Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
Message-ID: <654358a9-10a9-52f3-c1e9-5f6e3392fcbd@dcrocker.net>
Date: Sun, 5 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: <1073c89f-1158-ccde-df02-ae9a416eacf5@bbiw.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/Vg1OK1LTRgQcrWvzJvii-FgALc8>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] [apps-discuss] Draft of interest in DNSOP: draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: 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 
document.

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 
URI RR?


> 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.

d/

-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net