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

[Ray Bellis <[e-mail]>]

On 01/03/2016 16:39, John Levine wrote:

> The other which I prefer is simply to put the four _proto tags into
> the new underscore registry.  Add a note that they have subnames from
> the RFC 6335 services registry, and for anew new protocol tags try to to
> keep the protocol names consistent with the keywords in the protocol
> number registry.

This, exactly.

I'd suggest that perhaps the keywords from the protocol registry (or a
canonical representation thereof, for those that don't match LDH) should
actually be reserved ?

> I see the universe of underscore tags falling into three categories.
> 
> 1.  Tags that mean something under a hostname.  This includes the
> _proto tags and things like _domainkey and _vouch.
> 
> 2.  Tags that only mean something under a _proto tag.  This is 
> the set of service names in the RFC 6335 registry and _nnn (port number)
> used to name TLSA records.
> 
> 3.  Tags that only mean something under some other underscore tag.
> This is a very small list, _adsp._domainkey and _report._dmarc are
> the only ones I know.
> 
> It would be useful to define the registry for the first kind of tags.
> The second already has a registry, the third is uninteresting since it
> has no collision issues.

All that, too.

Ray