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

"John R. Levine" <johnl@iecc.com> Sat, 31 March 2018 19:05 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@iecc.com>
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 077F71200A0 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 31 Mar 2018 12:05:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.011
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.011 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.d=iecc.com
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 UKzgRRYkdcO3 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 31 Mar 2018 12:05:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:43:6f73:7461]) (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 8A9C0126C2F for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Sat, 31 Mar 2018 12:05:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 3252 invoked from network); 31 Mar 2018 19:05:01 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type:user-agent; s=cb2.5abfdbdd.k1803; bh=GMNZ2JvaGzZxkaqYQ29ivcRfcA39vEO4FX/PXudsjmg=; b=Elp5hTKj7gYARCPgznmwXc9HQGpxYGMtH22nSjcOvnhx4mUnOfFIkScGEedKOHRnDl2PTu+XqF4d/wg3euCqYm6lvzZo2HpjyIEBnio2Ox375+khVTK/1HcqMeMQBoQ6IE8j19qv7Ci18AQNw3mwJ0k7VbvUWyTfGm7oidnSzVGYEZNwsHxpc3ZreER5oUgQ0V743Vys6sxGn1Yg0sK7NBvICstun7dUQeryhzMe8kMZ/t0z5gwCLIwZbSpvXQFh
Received: from localhost ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) by imap.iecc.com ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) with ESMTPS (TLS1.2/X.509/AEAD) via TCP6; 31 Mar 2018 19:05:01 -0000
Date: 31 Mar 2018 15:04:59 -0400
Message-ID: <alpine.OSX.2.21.1803311504210.4622@ary.qy>
From: "John R. Levine" <johnl@iecc.com>
To: "Paul Vixie" <paul@redbarn.org>
Cc: dnsop@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <5ABFD76C.105@redbarn.org>
References: <f7b85bac-b050-5003-2df0-a48b1ef2f929@dcrocker.net> <e1f41670-ada8-eaac-468c-c712b338a10b@dcrocker.net> <alpine.OSX.2.21.1803201804440.8940@dhcp-8344.meeting.ietf.org> <A7711F58-5145-49E8-9158-B2F94D0EABBF@redbarn.org> <7c168dc1-2ea7-d47e-78b7-0380e5d0aa84@dcrocker.net> <alpine.OSX.2.21.1803211104210.9553@ary.local> <5244d327-f8ea-1590-c663-1d92e0b194c4@dcrocker.net> <5F44FA5B42805C52479DE491@PSB> <alpine.OSX.2.21.1803211507380.9666@dhcp-935d.meeting.ietf.org> <1DF1564CC2B88726B2B54CF4@PSB> <5AB89C4C.7090300@redbarn.org> <4C79BE1080735A41C8697C8D@PSB> <alpine.OSX.2.21.1803260915260.19119@ary.local> <0DC55A40A5F920C5F41AB044@PSB> <CABuGu1qZuqtH5qntOhsOZYXXQX8ZkBpMuKmBL3egiiazwLwmWw@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.OSX.2.21.1803262042080.19530@ary.home> <5AB96669.8050004@redbarn.org> <alpine.OSX.2.21.1803310814090.2524@ary.qy> <5ABFD76C.105@redbarn.org>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.21 (OSX 202 2017-01-01)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/aQdRB2PFn6sYWCpo9MjMmOH43_8>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] [art] Another look - draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf-05.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: Sat, 31 Mar 2018 19:05:05 -0000

> what this means is, if someone sees _TCP in use for some rr type, and they 
> needed something like this for their own new rr type, they should be 
> encouraged to either use _TCP if they find it's the best fit, or use 
> something else if they find that a best fit. they should not worry either 
> away about either reusing, or not reusing, an existing name.

Well, that, too.  Either way, it'd be nice to have all the underscore 
names in one place rather than spread into N places for N record types.

R's,
John