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

[Paul Hoffman <[e-mail]>]

On Oct 2, 2018, at 4:56 AM, Tim Wicinski <[e-mail]> 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 <[e-mail]> 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