Re: [DNSOP] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf-fix-04: (with COMMENT)

Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net> Wed, 10 October 2018 16:38 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 BB0ED130F89; Wed, 10 Oct 2018 09:38:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.491
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.491 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" 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 r3VYtWVeuVo8; Wed, 10 Oct 2018 09:38:54 -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 37F75130F0D; Wed, 10 Oct 2018 09:38:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [172.16.20.49] ([64.80.128.22]) (authenticated bits=0) by simon.songbird.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/Debian-4.1ubuntu1) with ESMTP id w9AGdGae021735 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 10 Oct 2018 09:39:17 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=dcrocker.net; s=default; t=1539189558; bh=cAcvBXHlTJJ9yYIX3pAqsV7Aj6wS1lvzpNDOaAXcJ1A=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=gxW4tzkghbpGUmLXeKRBMwt28HJPHnjvK3Wt9uMPPShth4eqX46sjcEs09JbUbjcE PJfq9A4wnQgSZiUkJCbOKZP0w7gHDs86+s4JHN9WTALr3o+fBhpVnnRazph3fQuGvH Vk28PGGL1BaAEUjWR0g0HdmPRmfKA8EEw05HlLus=
To: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: benno@NLnetLabs.nl, dnsop@ietf.org, dnsop-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf-fix@ietf.org
References: <153905658979.18363.9468480045775152891.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <7e5ae04b-e285-e0e8-0c8e-44a6cbeeca25@dcrocker.net> <ee53117a-f17d-05b0-0fbc-c90da2e3e9c1@nostrum.com>
From: Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net>
Message-ID: <60d56f99-a986-ab30-8ad3-56935a0fab1d@dcrocker.net>
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2018 12:38:59 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.2.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <ee53117a-f17d-05b0-0fbc-c90da2e3e9c1@nostrum.com>
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/hC2ffiB9GjIVvlZUOOEQEPnw0Wg>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf-fix-04: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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, 10 Oct 2018 16:38:56 -0000

On 10/10/2018 11:52 AM, Adam Roach wrote:
> I think this reply covers everything that warranted a specific response 
> except for the questions in the following three comments, which are 
> asking specifically about URI RRs:

Drat.  Sorry.  I'll blame it on limited screen real estate while 
traveling, impeding a careful audit...


> 
>> Comment 1: Was the removal of "web" intentional?

I believe it was not intentional.  I've added it to the draft because I 
can't think of a downside to its being there...


>>
>> Comment 2: These initial entries misspell "xmpp" as "xmp"

ack.


>> Comment 3: Is it envisioned that all future URI entries in this table 
>> will
>> reference RFC 7533? That doesn't quite seem right. My instinct is that 
>> it would
>> serve the users of this registry better if:
>>
>>   - _iax refers to RFC 6315
>>   - _acct refers to RFC 7566
>>   - All other enumservice-based URI entries in the current table refer to
>>     RFC 6118
>>   - RFC 7533 is mentioned elsewhere in the document as the reason 
>> enumservices
>>     appear in the table.

Hmmm.  I like your last bullet, as a way of choosing between citing 
definition of the RR vs definition of the name.  Thanks!


d/

-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net