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

[John C Klensin <[e-mail]>]

--On Monday, March 26, 2018 01:20 -0700 Paul Vixie
<[e-mail]> wrote:

> 
> 
> John C Klensin wrote:
>> 
>> --On Monday, March 26, 2018 00:07 -0700 Paul Vixie
>> <[e-mail]>  wrote:
>> 
>>>> ... My impression has been that, while there is nothing we
>>>> can change about what is done and deployed, there has been
>>>> community consensus that it is a bad idea and that changes
>>>> have been made to the procedures for defining and
>>>> registering new RRTYPEs to reinforce the principle that new
>>>> RRTYPEs should be used and to make their use easier.
>>>> "Significantly challenging over the life of the DNS" is
>>>> undoubtedly correct, but that should not be, and presumably
>>>> is not, the situation today or in recent years. I believe
>>>> this document should not be advanced until that material is
>>>> changed to be clear that use of underscore or similar
>>>> conventions may be a reality but is not a desirable
>>>> substitute for separate RRTYPEs (with or without that
>>>> convention as appropriate).
> 
>>> while i am sympathetic to this point of view, and even share
>>> it, i know that developers of new apps learned from the SPF
>>> RR example "never again" and that they can and have and will
>>> continue to create new apps based on TXT with or without the
>>> IETF's blessing. so i'm expecting your call for the stated
>>> clarification to not reach consensus in this WG.
>> 
>> If you are telling me I've fighting a losing battle, I
>> understand that. At the same time, as I trust people have
>> figured out from RFC 8324 and/or Bert's presentation in DNSOP
>> last week, I think there is reason for concern that
>> continuing to add features, especially features with either
>> high intrinsic complexity or significant kludge properties,
>> may eventually push things over some virtual cliff. That
>> makes the fight worth fighting even if most of the battles
>> are lost.
> 
> i wish that reality as we will experience it was even halfway
> as cut or dried as you describe here. however, just as the
> worst abuser of "fake news" later became the most common
> accuser of that abuse in others, especially where the news
> _wasn't_ fake, so it is that your desire to create new RRTYPEs
> in preference to "just use TXT and allocate a new underbar'd
> name" will be called, wrongly and unfairly as i see it, but
> that won't matter, will be called, "unnec'y increase in system
> complexity." therefore, the battle you'll lose will be around
> who gets to call which thing by what name, and not around what
> problems should be avoided. the shape of this conference table
> has been decided -- your remaining decision is where you will
> allow yourself to be seated.

Again, Paul, I fear you are right, but that does not eliminate
my sense that trying to sound the alarm is worthwhile.

    best,
      john