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

[Dave Crocker <[e-mail]>]

On 2/29/2016 2:32 PM, Ray Bellis 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


So this commentr sequence is tending to convince me to have the document 
stay away from saying anything about SRV's subordinate _underscore name 
field, _Service.

However for _Proto, there remains a basic problem with the current SRV 
arrangement, in the face of an _underscore registry:  name collision.

If SRV continues to specify _Proto choices from a separate IANA 
registry, there there are two, /independent/ places for doing 
_underscore registrations.  That model ensures name collisions.

While I doubt that all 7000 service names, or even a small fraction of 
them, get used for SRV, whatever percentage does get used is likely to 
be a large-ish number.  So, yeah, having to duplicate the registration 
is problematic.

In the case of _Proto names, the set is tiny, so the burden of 
explicitly registering these names in an _underscore registry is not 
onerous, given that it is the only way to ensure that name collisions 
are avoided.

d/

-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net