Re: [DNSOP] attrleaf

Paul Vixie <> Tue, 28 March 2017 19:06 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B674129550 for <>; Tue, 28 Mar 2017 12:06:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.902
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Z_Ia1WNwzcIM for <>; Tue, 28 Mar 2017 12:06:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:559:8000:cd::5]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 527511294FA for <>; Tue, 28 Mar 2017 12:06:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [IPv6:2001:559:8000:c9:50e4:c235:dee1:8442] (unknown [IPv6:2001:559:8000:c9:50e4:c235:dee1:8442]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4CC1E61F9C; Tue, 28 Mar 2017 19:06:15 +0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2017 12:06:13 -0700
From: Paul Vixie <>
User-Agent: Postbox 5.0.12 (Windows/20170323)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: John Levine <>
References: <20170328183740.2502.qmail@ary.lan>
In-Reply-To: <20170328183740.2502.qmail@ary.lan>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] attrleaf
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2017 19:06:18 -0000

John Levine wrote:
>> i don't think it's wise to estimate damage by observed complain level.
>> if _ is now in world wide use for all kinds of stuff, you can still say
>> that SRV got it wrong, and that the recommended way to do this kind of
>> thing is different from what SRV did.
> I don't see how this is relevant to attrleaf.  This draft collects
> existing uses of underscore prefixed names, and says how to add new
> names if and when they're defined.

i'm fine with an inventory and a how-to. you're not disagreeing with
what i intended to say.

> ...  It's not offering advice that
> underscore names are wonderful, it's recognizing the ones that are in
> use now.

as you wrote above, it's also saying "how to add new names". i'd like
our advice in this regard to be considered excellent.

P Vixie