Re: [DNSOP] namespaces, I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf-06.txt

"John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com> Sun, 01 April 2018 15:10 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 7EA4C124C27 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 1 Apr 2018 08:10:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.762
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.762 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=0.249, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.d=iecc.com header.b=Is5470tW; dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.d=taugh.com header.b=A99lM085
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 fLWaqYJ7uSsp for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 1 Apr 2018 08:10:38 -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 C8DD0126BF6 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Sun, 1 Apr 2018 08:10:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 79522 invoked from network); 1 Apr 2018 15:10:36 -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=136a0.5ac0f66c.k1804; bh=Pf3qULZxS7stzwoBr86SPI078Y/aZJlwmP+cvM3LBTQ=; b=Is5470tWXJM0E+Wz74wMy8gRp0GOcbLRMzI/HnBPSdivwvjYheR1x00Hvt8LBXhaz3Y5/X07e+w2dKShKeBjxsAdsmg9mwHYkPA3ZkXFUs2EG/5bmESUvpJJenUD7oxMClXaXKHQrlh3InnnX03grOJQdDgtJq40UDZ2ezPJKAviMHT/NntgWpoM5Q6wKwE2EztXV93O9CrJF6jpWNvVs5fmQNE5sCpPZiFXb6raBBAzOpigl4cXXt3qkmCeN2sT
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=136a0.5ac0f66c.k1804; bh=Pf3qULZxS7stzwoBr86SPI078Y/aZJlwmP+cvM3LBTQ=; b=A99lM085h5mCbuvBpeVd/htOIL5z1KrGZTTcHULtYW9i07VLp7Eldt0L4vVI3oVR1M6lZbqvphkNFJZe1lT9asrwIyziz9nZpYRSFFCk1u1yPuCB1XZMmuubuILl9a0Dj9DEAX0aGDo/sZtRXvOYEL602gEL/jj6Gz0jOgfdJDeRIMd8OnhoBYJ8eBnqxUFVOXk5AIkG3yKKsQHH2D3+SyJ4PylcoC2NH5DXOF+TCh0VB/pPKaJn1EDJ6gNjViUd
Received: from ary.qy ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) by imap.iecc.com ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) with ESMTP via TCP6; 01 Apr 2018 15:10:35 -0000
Received: by ary.qy (Postfix, from userid 501) id 7E7E723D5FF4; Sun, 1 Apr 2018 11:10:35 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2018 11:10:35 -0400
Message-Id: <20180401151035.7E7E723D5FF4@ary.qy>
From: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
To: dnsop@ietf.org
Cc: paul@redbarn.org
In-Reply-To: <5ABD22AA.7080509@redbarn.org>
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/ilB-4_cOq-SEjZm4cKCYlbEOgdE>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] namespaces, I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf-06.txt
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Sun, 01 Apr 2018 15:10:39 -0000

In article <5ABD22AA.7080509@redbarn.org> you write:
>> While I think I see a computer science basis for saying that an RR type
>> has a namespace, I'm continuing to find the point more confusing than
>> helpful, and fear that other readers will, too.
>>
>> At the least, can you point me to official documents that explain that
>> view? I've looked around a bit an haven't found such a specification or
>> discussion.
>
>it only contains a namespace for the purposes of your underscore 
>registry. no use of _TCP by any other RR type will conflict with the use 
>of _TCP by SRV, for example. thus, each RR type effectively has its own 
>registry, whose names need only be unique within that registry. you may 
>prefer to call it a dictionary rather than a namespace in order to avoid 
>confusion around what other DNS RFC's call a "namespace".

It depends which end of the telescope you're looking through.

For a DNS client, you're right. A _name on FOO and BAR records is
unrelated give or take niggles about NXDOMAIN vs. NODATA and what ANY
means that we can ignore.

For a DNS server, all the records at a given name are in the same
zone, so if we invented two uses of _name that would not be managed
together, we'd create an eternity of misery for zone maintainers.
The way that TLSA reuses _transport names for port numbers rather than
services skates close to that line.

The current plan to do one registry that includes both _name and
rrname is right, but I'm not sure if it'd be useful to add some
naming advice along the lines of the above.

R's,
John