Re: [DNSOP] redefining SRV, was New Version Notification for draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf-03.txt

Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net> Tue, 20 March 2018 17:23 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 597F41242EA for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Mar 2018 10:23:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, 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 N4STf9SdFVpz for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Mar 2018 10:23:40 -0700 (PDT)
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 76C3612778D for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 20 Mar 2018 10:23:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.168] (76-218-8-128.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net [76.218.8.128]) (authenticated bits=0) by simon.songbird.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/Debian-4.1ubuntu1) with ESMTP id w2KHOtoO025723 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 20 Mar 2018 10:24:56 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=dcrocker.net; s=default; t=1521566696; bh=xX55BzpA2OtN/nMRX08O7jzoXyIyBkmuBEXpg5ibAc8=; h=Subject:To:References:Reply-To:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=f5ATsbdEEIQbGzPOyFCxjakbhKeRkr5F9wjCSI613fvMgYbojDGeZtDTh2jBCRJ7U sBD3J/F2u9CCBgaJ+IhtVX5ZMUnlB1QRfDCEUaTlVatYiNjHxO436R4NZ50DDxm7g0 Khdi6x14eFBuCZwA4XiU41Ulpgak38MWUuVvc+P8=
To: "John R. Levine" <johnl@iecc.com>, dnsop@ietf.org
References: <alpine.OSX.2.21.1803201716220.8834@dhcp-8344.meeting.ietf.org>
Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
From: Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
Message-ID: <be3bb46c-2374-263a-1be9-31e1b091d72d@dcrocker.net>
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2018 10:23:29 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <alpine.OSX.2.21.1803201716220.8834@dhcp-8344.meeting.ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/Zbg991eIq9ENH3XbZ5sRqTftlh8>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] redefining SRV, was New Version Notification for draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf-03.txt
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: Tue, 20 Mar 2018 17:23:41 -0000

On 3/20/2018 10:16 AM, John R. Levine wrote:
>>  We need to move away from the complexity created by having special 
>> rules for
>>  some entries in the registry.
> 
> That would be fine except that the Port and Service registry has 
> thousands of entries, and the named ones (nearly all of them) are valid 
> SRV names. Importing a handful of names that we guess are commonly used 
> with SRV is the worst of both worlds.

Again: the plan is to change the SRV spec so that it doesn't try to 
inherit all those values automatically.


> Either point at the real registry for SRV, or say that this explicitly 
> redefines the namespace for SRV and see if dnsop will go for that.  I 
> don't see any way you can just ignore RFC 6335 and its predecessors.
> 
>>  ps.  I thought the URI RR had no current actual use (or at least very
>>  little.)
> 
> I belive that's correct, but again, either we deprecate URI or we deal 
> with its naming rules.

Or, here too, we change the URI spec.


d/

-- 
-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net