Re: [DNSOP] [apps-discuss] Draft of interest in DNSOP: draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf

"Paul Hoffman" <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> Mon, 29 August 2016 03:15 UTC

Return-Path: <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
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 1D32612D11F for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 28 Aug 2016 20:15:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 PAiXgDvRN4qP for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 28 Aug 2016 20:15:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.proper.com (Opus1.Proper.COM [207.182.41.91]) (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 884D812D11B for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Sun, 28 Aug 2016 20:15:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.20.30.101] (50-1-99-230.dsl.dynamic.fusionbroadband.com [50.1.99.230]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.proper.com (8.15.2/8.14.9) with ESMTPSA id u7T3F4bk087314 (version=TLSv1 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sun, 28 Aug 2016 20:15:06 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from paul.hoffman@vpnc.org)
X-Authentication-Warning: mail.proper.com: Host 50-1-99-230.dsl.dynamic.fusionbroadband.com [50.1.99.230] claimed to be [10.20.30.101]
From: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
Date: Sun, 28 Aug 2016 20:15:04 -0700
Message-ID: <5D83BCC8-3E5D-4B7A-9B2B-A2C9FF45064D@vpnc.org>
In-Reply-To: <9030a78a-7bb9-38a0-6477-8456c23c7161@dcrocker.net>
References: <20160829014200.4338.qmail@ary.lan> <9030a78a-7bb9-38a0-6477-8456c23c7161@dcrocker.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format="flowed"
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.9.4r5234)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/iICBqGDxSpYPapPaUnx7G6cgEbQ>
Cc: dnsop@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] [apps-discuss] Draft of interest in DNSOP: draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Mon, 29 Aug 2016 03:15:18 -0000

On 28 Aug 2016, at 18:58, Dave Crocker wrote:

> On 8/28/2016 6:42 PM, John Levine wrote:
>>> atrik's and John 's postings notwithstanding, I'm still concerned 
>>> about
>>> >the proposed way of handling this, namely to rely on IANA to do a 
>>> manual
>>> >check of the two registries the URI RR might call on.  First, it 
>>> does
>>> >not seem reasonable to me to impose that burden on the IANA staff 
>>> and
>>> >second a manual process like that is almost certain to produce 
>>> errors.
>> Well, either you can persuade Patrik and Olaf to revise RFC 7553 to
>> add a _enumservice psedudo-transport to disambiguate, or you can't.
>> When I look at the enumservice registry, I see that it's not very big
>> and doesn't change very often.
>>
>> Rather than speculating about how hard this would be for IANA, why
>> don't you ask them.  Do they have any other groups of registries that
>> they have to monitor for name collisions?  How much harder is that
>> than the checking they have to do in a large registry like ports and
>> services to be sure they don't reuse a name?
>
>
> Asking will give us a measure of 'willingness', not a measure of 
> 'long-term perfection'.  This difference is fundamental.  I'm worried 
> about the latter, while I consider the former to be a distraction.
>
> Simply put, specifying a smal task that requires humans to perform 
> perfectly at random, very (very) infrequent times, is a plan designed 
> to fail.

Can't this be checked by scraping IANA on a daily basis? That is, if 
IANA makes a mistake, it will be detected by the next scrape and IANA 
can be told to revert.

--Paul