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

[Dave Crocker <[e-mail]>]

On 3/29/2018 3:38 PM, Adam Roach wrote:
> I still don't fully understand the nature of the objections I cite above 
> or the assertions that having separate tables for different RRTYPEs is 
> somehow broken. Based on my (admittedly lay) understanding of how DNS is 
> used by other protocols, I agree with your proposal that having distinct 
> tables for each RRTYPE makes far more sense than the current structure.


1. Another round of thanks. On re-starting the effort, I'd missed that 
exchange.  I think adding

      "Scope is meant as a static property, not one dependent on the 
nature of the query.  It is an artifact of the DNS name."

from it, to the Intro will help a bit.

2. I think the latest round of discussion and change arguably implements 
your view, albeit within a single actual registry.


d/


-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net