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

Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@icann.org> Tue, 02 October 2018 14:27 UTC

Return-Path: <paul.hoffman@icann.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 AF4A1130EC0 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Oct 2018 07:27:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 kdcAOZGradxa for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Oct 2018 07:27:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out.west.pexch112.icann.org (out.west.pexch112.icann.org [64.78.40.7]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CA066130E78 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 2 Oct 2018 07:27:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from PMBX112-W1-CA-1.pexch112.icann.org (64.78.40.21) by PMBX112-W1-CA-2.pexch112.icann.org (64.78.40.23) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1367.3; Tue, 2 Oct 2018 07:27:00 -0700
Received: from PMBX112-W1-CA-1.pexch112.icann.org ([64.78.40.21]) by PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG ([64.78.40.21]) with mapi id 15.00.1367.000; Tue, 2 Oct 2018 07:27:00 -0700
From: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@icann.org>
To: Tim Wicinski <tjw.ietf@gmail.com>
CC: dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Ext] [DNSOP] Creating a registry for reserved labels.
Thread-Index: AQHUWlv6LT8oZAi+u0e6/zO+kLWetA==
Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2018 14:26:59 +0000
Message-ID: <9BDDE6A6-7EE8-43A7-AB97-84286E82F3B8@icann.org>
References: <20181001015003.BA0A420062BA6D@ary.qy> <0BE229F9-A28E-496D-9AB8-14A0C7E9661C@icann.org> <CADyWQ+FoCBGg6Hhzm2o8vhjCyOhdsMzkVSTRNQRaQhPUDNF6Jw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CADyWQ+FoCBGg6Hhzm2o8vhjCyOhdsMzkVSTRNQRaQhPUDNF6Jw@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [192.0.32.234]
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_82CBACB3-ABF6-4828-8387-0775A977E552"; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/iyBXMDTTcD-R43mAzP8jwp-PWyw>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Creating a registry for reserved labels.
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Tue, 02 Oct 2018 14:27:05 -0000

On Oct 2, 2018, at 4:56 AM, Tim Wicinski <tjw.ietf@gmail.com> 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.

> I think Terry's comment should be in any document describing this registry:
> 
>  Therefore, it is important to note that the reservation of the labels in this manner is definitely not considered "best practice".

I cannot disagree more. If Terry wants to write a document telling people what he thinks is the best practice is to creating important protocols like IDNA, that's great. I sincerely doubt he'll get IETF consensus, but he's welcome to try. This document is about the registry.


On Oct 2, 2018, at 7:01 AM, Wessels, Duane <dwessels@verisign.com> wrote:

> It feels to me like “this bucket” is not well defined enough at this point to say whether 8145 falls in it, or not.   Shouldn’t the dns-special-labels draft lay out some guidelines for what goes in the registry and what doesn’t?  

Yes. I punted that to the WG.

> And maybe even explain in what ways the registry entries are special, not simply that (someone thinks) they are special?

That too.

--Paul Hoffman