Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Creating a registry for reserved labels.

"John Levine" <> Tue, 02 October 2018 18:56 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA3AE130DC2 for <>; Tue, 2 Oct 2018 11:56:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.651
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.651 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lWzvA5UyK14x for <>; Tue, 2 Oct 2018 11:56:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [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 (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 61911130FF0 for <>; Tue, 2 Oct 2018 11:56:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 27394 invoked by uid 100); 2 Oct 2018 18:56:45 -0000
Date: 2 Oct 2018 18:56:44 -0000
Message-ID: <pp0f1c$qnn$>
From: "John Levine" <>
Organization: Taughannock Networks
References: <20181001015003.BA0A420062BA6D@ary.qy> <> <> <>
Cleverness: some
X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test77 (Sep 1, 2010)
Originator: (John Levine)
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Creating a registry for reserved labels.
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2018 18:56:48 -0000

In article <>rg>,
Paul Hoffman  <> wrote:
>> My only concern is that I hope kskrol-sentinel and mta-sts are not held up while we quickly hammer out this labels registry. 
>MTA-STS is already an RFC, so there is nothing to hold up. I don't think that the IESG would hold up Sentinel because this registry will have other
>values from existing RFCs.
>> Question:  does 8145 (key tag) fall into this bucket? 
>I didn't put it there because the label only applies for query type NULL, but others might disagree and want it in the registry.

It seems to me that the most useful purpose for this registry is to
identify names that are resolved using the normal DNS protocol (not
like .local or .onion) but that are treated specially by some
application(s) above the DNS stack. So the 8145 key tag would go in,
as would evertything in _attrleaf, the latter likely by reference.

As to whether it's best or worst practice, I'd stay away from that and
just clarify that the bar for adding new entries is high because of
the risk that they will collide with existing non-special use.

John Levine,, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail.