Re: [DNSOP] Another look - draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf-05.txt

[Martin Hoffmann <[e-mail]>]

John C Klensin wrote:
>
> From that point of view, namespaces are actually
> per-RRTYPE and the right way to design this document would be as
> a registry of "_"-introduced keywords, with subregistries for
> each RRTYPE with which those keywords can be used.  Given the
> way the DNS works, at least as I understand it, there is no DNS
> protocol conflict between
>      _foo IN XYZ Data1
> and
>      _foo IN ABC Data2
> 
> Using the same keyword in both cases may be a bad idea [...]

This sort of thing already happens: Both SRV and TLSA use the
_tcp and _udp labels. Perhaps the difference is subtle since in
both cases the label denotes the transport protocol. But names
do represent different things -- a service provided for a
logical entity v. a port of a physical host.

Which also reminds me: The DANE RRtypes, ie., TLSA, SMIMEA, and
OPENPGPKEY all use underscore labels and are currently missing
from the initial table in section 3.1.

Kind regards,
Martin