Re: [DNSOP] why did SRV care to avoid conflicts

Paul Vixie <paul@redbarn.org> Mon, 26 March 2018 22:41 UTC

Return-Path: <paul@redbarn.org>
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 71131127978 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 Mar 2018 15:41:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.911
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.911 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=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 u4OfWLXAR5aX for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 Mar 2018 15:41:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from family.redbarn.org (family.redbarn.org [24.104.150.213]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 331B3126579 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Mon, 26 Mar 2018 15:41:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [IPv6:2001:559:8000:c9:4ca8:bd4c:848b:7427] (unknown [IPv6:2001:559:8000:c9:4ca8:bd4c:848b:7427]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by family.redbarn.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id F19677594C; Mon, 26 Mar 2018 22:41:46 +0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <5AB97728.70202@redbarn.org>
Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 15:41:44 -0700
From: Paul Vixie <paul@redbarn.org>
User-Agent: Postbox 5.0.24 (Windows/20180302)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org>
CC: "dnsop@ietf.org" <dnsop@ietf.org>
References: <5AB96F3C.4090204@redbarn.org> <A400D2A3-3866-4EE3-879B-479991581502@isc.org> <265EBB42-4042-40BE-88C5-F3FEB6540DA6@isc.org>
In-Reply-To: <265EBB42-4042-40BE-88C5-F3FEB6540DA6@isc.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/XQfo5Kh7A1qkTlOIW6q8XbWyOGI>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] why did SRV care to avoid conflicts
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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, 26 Mar 2018 22:41:48 -0000


Mark Andrews wrote:
> But the real reason for using _blah is so you can split ownership of
> tcp.com from _tcp.com which you couldn’t do if the well know label names
> used the preferred name format (LDH) is it would be “tcp” rather than “_tcp”.

in my day, COM wasn't a service identifier, and its subdomains were all 
delegation points, so all had NS RRsets, some had DS RRsets, and if one 
wanted a service name like MARKA.COM, the SRV named _TCP (or just TCP, 
if i were doing it today) would be inside the MARKA zone, as a child of 
the apex.

-- 
P Vixie