Re: [DNSOP] A quick update on draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf / draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf-fix

"John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com> Fri, 19 October 2018 14:19 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@iecc.com>
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 5AF9D130EFA for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Oct 2018 07:19:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.751
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.751 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.d=iecc.com header.b=HMjLFJTS; dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.d=taugh.com header.b=TZ7GCd6g
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 Yt__toiqsnAg for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Oct 2018 07:19:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:43:6f73:7461]) (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 BF1D1130F03 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Fri, 19 Oct 2018 07:19:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 24380 invoked from network); 19 Oct 2018 14:19:29 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=5f38.5bc9e7f1.k1810; bh=fgGHqs88qn2VzIjF11+seQ9AOBVe/TPCP6aB0FexL5Q=; b=HMjLFJTSDcD2dU+e7bcXSKz7pgI7qAvMmIqW2t3AhT9uWoo62MYieXRXzp983k3282EjpOwjbRCMzTxov9+2ztwsfNVGuMHmab1q8ydF4gV+7oT/juN9jQH+8h98Wu0SgeWsKpnDv7PHp4MqRg+ViuM5V0TpJu0Xp0MJsx3BAB0MZ8XUUzckQWjzS2wgZwZS9Mf84ni6pUba8H/jEJUH5stYBkOfQ3fZXkuIZnjJH+4hjiez+K9DCtNqePF9PX/s
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=5f38.5bc9e7f1.k1810; bh=fgGHqs88qn2VzIjF11+seQ9AOBVe/TPCP6aB0FexL5Q=; b=TZ7GCd6gPvEkcs1Hxnokm7aHCA1xBp6WD87ZhVNqJ+xEomrSXzTdXyy4L5coD+m+iW6+R6Z9EXaWDwSgqueNSVOKZALWYVbi6FpljA1pQxjbhl831gRDgCJkR4zgeR3/KzWUs6/CoMtDuVIJvF1zuBGjQ03VMux6kYgbQv91mX6Z3YNSPWU5WvGzRGFJd2va7Ml7py8gXXF57UvZGqdIwA1jHgvyRZSprPM9DtnkvHF3sE6NEqTHEtvTW0B/cvsy
Received: from ary.local ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) by imap.iecc.com ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) with ESMTP via TCP6; 19 Oct 2018 14:19:27 -0000
Received: by ary.local (Postfix, from userid 501) id 8081C20070D92C; Fri, 19 Oct 2018 16:19:26 +0200 (CEST)
Date: 19 Oct 2018 16:19:26 +0200
Message-Id: <20181019141927.8081C20070D92C@ary.local>
From: "John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com>
To: dnsop@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <CAHw9_iKRxsR9ufbUDHhk7J7URsXV3Kenz90LtQ+Why1MYba4fA@mail.gmail.com>
Organization: Taughannock Networks
X-Headerized: yes
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/hPzHDyuy3w3tR6eyUoX_MrFijFE>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] A quick update on draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf / draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf-fix
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: Fri, 19 Oct 2018 14:19:33 -0000

In article <CAHw9_iKRxsR9ufbUDHhk7J7URsXV3Kenz90LtQ+Why1MYba4fA@mail.gmail.com> you write:
>So, there were a few documents where I was not able to quickly figure out
>which of the classes it should be placed in.

Honestly, some of these don't look updated to me.  The clues are in the
table in attrleaf-14

>RFC6121 -- Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP): Instant
>Messaging and Presence
>This updates RFC3921 and explicitly recommends against SRV.
>"Interoperability Note: RFC 3921 specified how to use the _im._xmpp and
>_pres._xmpp SRV records [IMP-SRV] as a fallback method for discovering
>whether a remote instant messaging and presence service communicates via
>XMPP. Because those SRV records have not been widely deployed, this
>document no longer specifies their use, and new implementations are not
>encouraged."
>Should this be in this list?

RFC 3861 implies the _xmpp protocol tag for SRV, 3921 defines it, 6121
says not to use it but it already exists so it's in the registry.  I
don't see anything updated or to update.

>I couldn't figure out RFC3404, and RFC6011.
>Clue appreciated.
>
>RFC3404 -- Dynamic Delegation Discovery System (DDDS) Part Four: The
>Uniform Resource Identifiers (URI) Resolution Application
>Perhaps SRV? But it doesn't really seem to be underscore scoped...

I believe that all SRV records are supposed to have _names and the examples
in 3404 without them are wrong.  An erratum might be appropriate but I don't
see anything to update.

>RFC6011 -- Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) User Agent Configuration
>I got confused here -- I cannot really see the underscore names here as
>anything other than a target name.

Me neither.  I wonder if some of these are left over cruft from earlier
revisions that included service names.

R's,
John