Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf-12.txt

Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net> Wed, 25 July 2018 13:23 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 69D58130E06 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Jul 2018 06:23:29 -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 WuxXoTyVQ-NI for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Jul 2018 06:23:28 -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 099891292AD for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Wed, 25 Jul 2018 06:23:28 -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 w6PDQ5Jl005702 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Wed, 25 Jul 2018 06:26:05 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=dcrocker.net; s=default; t=1532525165; bh=1nGqMDBZgqafiJttVdAiB4CIBBXzZ2lJg+2yAo9C7Sk=; h=Subject:To:References:Reply-To:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=HBV0+2rOacDqCJ28TnEdtoPB8FWVAx8FUferOYmEGpDxby0q4a+3xWc1Om68uSsuk mZ6HE9+B7KJhCQml/5f6sUxqLSa3ranKcbdxWbhiwNEJcXTja/3inlmmScFlktf0AP bIw6UOWC0ybQkqT1kgdME6Hu2M0XwkExHYUq5pOk=
To: dnsop@ietf.org
References: <20180724145845.1FB912002CE945@ary.qy>
Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
From: Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
Message-ID: <30cc33d7-ae70-4192-4f67-377cc9c3b972@dcrocker.net>
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2018 06:23:20 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20180724145845.1FB912002CE945@ary.qy>
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/garXt6HlY5kBgvveWcsYquPoKdg>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf-12.txt
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27
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: Wed, 25 Jul 2018 13:23:30 -0000

For completeness:

      Absent further discussion and agreement in the wg, I taking this 
exchange as producing /no/ changes to the spec.

d/


On 7/24/2018 7:58 AM, John Levine wrote:
> In article <9DA145F4-DF6A-4BFA-B3C9-56027B228050@iis.se> you write:
>> -=-=-=-=-=-
>> In table 2 on page 9, the draft refers to RFC 2782 for _dccp and _sctp (SRV), but those “_node names”
>> are not even mentioned in the RFC. Are they defined elsewhere?
> 
> RFC 2782 says that SRV's are named with _proto where proto is is a
> protocol name.  RFCs 3588 and 6733 say to do _sctp SRV lookups, but
> don't further define them, and only have 2782 as an informative
> reference.  No RFC mentions _dccp.
> 
> It seems to me that 2782 is the right reference for _sctp.  For _dccp
> we've had arguments about whether 2782 says that a SRV can be named by
> any protocol so maybe we should put in every protocol in the IANA
> registry.  That's a lot of dead protocols.  A reasonable compromise
> would be to start the registry with the names that have some evidence
> of being used somewhere, so we could drop _dccp
> 
>> In the same table, the draft refers to RFC 7553 for a number of URI _node names, but the references are quite
>> indirect. Could references to relevant IANA registries be added?
> 
> Since RFC 7553 is the place that says that the enumservice names turn
> into _node names, I think that's the right reference.



-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net