Subject: Re: [DNSOP] A quick update on draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf / draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf-fix
From: Warren Kumari <[email-masked]>
To: dnsop <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2018 14:08:31 +0200
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <dnsop.ietf.org>

So, there were a few documents where I was not able to quickly figure out
which of the classes it should be placed in.

RFC3861 describes how to use SRV, but it is updated by RFC6121, which
largely says "Don't!" -- what do we do here? Update both? Just RFC3861?
Juast RFC6121?
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...

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?

RFC3861 -- Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP): Instant
Messaging and Presence
See above. It would be SRV, but was updated by RFC6121.

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.

W

On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 11:49 AM Warren Kumari <[email-masked]> wrote:

>
>
> On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 9:34 AM Warren Kumari <[email-masked]> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 9:04 PM Warren Kumari <[email-masked]> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi there,
>>>
>>> Dave suggested I send this out.
>>>
>>> draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf and draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf-fix have
>>> completed IESG review.
>>> Alissa is holding a DISCUSS position on draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf-fix -
>>> this can be seen here:
>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf-fix/ballot/
>>>
>>> Alissa (and a number of other ADs) feel that each of the (37!) updated
>>> documents should be classified into 2.1. (TXT RRset), 2.2. (SRV RRset)
>>> or 2.3. (URI RRset).
>>>
>>> Basically, we need to go through each document in draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf-fix,
>>> figure out which class it falls into (TXT, SRV, URI), and add it to a list.
>>> We then add a sentence to each of those sections saying "Documents in this
>>> category include RFCxxxx, RFCyyyy, RFCzzzz".
>>>
>>> Dave has stated that he is unwilling to do this work. Instead of having
>>> the WG document simply stall, Benno and I have agreed that we would split
>>> them between us. If anyone would like to volunteer to help out, we would
>>> not take it amiss.
>>>
>>> Please note that this is not a normal situation - in general we expect
>>> the authors to deal with IESG DISCUSS (and other ballots) - but we wanted
>>> to move this document along.
>>>
>>> So, if you would be willing to take a few documents to classify, please
>>> go to this spreadsheet:
>>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1oTs8ZJy6EZdSt4NXZJbcIRd771V9Rbg9TqddE5KlLGE/edit?usp=sharing
>>> [0]
>>>
>>> Change the reviewer from Benno or Warren to your name **before**
>>> starting the review (we really don't need multiple reviews of the same
>>> document!), and then update the spreadsheet with what "class" of update it
>>> is. Please have the review done by Wednesday Oct 24th.
>>>
>>> Review help would be appreciated, but if you are not able to (I know
>>> people are really busy before IETF week), Benno and I will manage...
>>>
>>
>>
>> ... and my plane was delayed by an hour, so I decided to take a start on
>> this - I’ve done ~20 so far, so please remember to check the spreadsheet
>> before starting any...
>>
>
>
> ... and I got basically all of the rest done on the flight.
>
> I have a few which I really cannot figure out what category they are, and
> so I’ll ask for your help figuring them out...
>
> W
>
>
>> W
>>
>>
>>> W
>>> [0]: Posting a public link to a spreadsheet.... what could *possibly* go
>>> wrong!?
>>>
>>> --
>>> I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad idea
>>> in the first place.
>>> This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing
>>> regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair of
>>> pants.
>>>    ---maf
>>>
>> --
>> I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad idea
>> in the first place.
>> This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing
>> regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair of
>> pants.
>>    ---maf
>>
> --
> I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad idea
> in the first place.
> This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing
> regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair of
> pants.
>    ---maf
>

-- 
I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad idea in
the first place.
This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing
regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair of
pants.
   ---maf