Re: [DNSOP] Minor editorial change to draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps

Been trying to figure out where to insert this.

https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-sullivan-dns-class-useless-03

Abstract

   Domain Name System Resource Records are identified in part by their
   class.  The class field is not effective, and it is not used the way
   it appears to have been intended.  This memo suspends additions to
   the DNS class registry pending greater clarity on how classes might
   be used, and until such clarification requires those defining new
   RRTYPEs to define them for all classes.

Answer wrote a draft about this a few months / years ago.
W

On Tue, Jul 4, 2017 at 10:36 PM, william manning
<chinese.apricot@gmail.com> wrote:
> Most of the other application (besides dns) presume a single class, IN,
> hence the URL presumption of "DNS name" will -always- be in the IN class.
> Technically imprecise and sloppy, but pragmatically it works...  until some
> loons come along and do something creative with classes.   Then all bets are
> off.
> RFC 1034 also uses IN in its examples and most folks forget inheritence
> rules.
>
> /Wm
>
> On Tue, Jul 4, 2017 at 7:23 PM, Matthew Kerwin <matthew@kerwin.net.au>
> wrote:
>>
>> On 5 July 2017 at 10:02, Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org> wrote:
>> >
>> > Who owns a name is a different question to what machines serve the
>> > <name,type,class> tuple and how do you reach those machines.  There
>> > is absolutely no reason why the zones <name,IN> and <name,CLASS56>
>> > need to be served by the same machines.  There is a argument for
>> > them both being under control of the same people.
>> >
>> > Mark
>> >
>>
>> Hi, I'm jumping in at a random time with a possibly dumb question, but
>> the talk of <name,type> and <name,type,class> tuples got me wondering
>> about representation in general, and URLs in particular.
>>
>> RFCs 3986 and 7230 say[*] that every 'host' in a HTTP URL that looks
>> like a DNS name is a DNS name, and that they have to be resolved to IP
>> addresses if you want to fetch them, but they don't talk meaningfully
>> about how to do that resolution. Given that we always assume class=IN
>> (not to mention type=A|AAAA via happy eyeballs), how would we go about
>> practically presenting an alternative class in things like URLs?
>> (Registering a new "alt-http" URL scheme doesn't strike me as a great
>> idea.)
>>
>> Because it's all well and good setting up your own .org hierarchy
>> under class=FOO or whatever, but there's not much point if you can't
>> send people to www.not-icann.org using it. Unless you don't want to
>> expose your new hierarchy to the web ...?
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>>
>> [*] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3986#section-3.2.2 :
>>
>>    """A registered name intended for lookup in the DNS uses the syntax
>>    defined in Section 3.5 of [RFC1034] and Section 2.1 of [RFC1123]."""
>>
>> I read that as: "if it matches RFC1034 (and isn't overridden by the
>> specific URI scheme's rules) it's a DNS name."  It could be read the
>> other way, but that just adds more assumptions.
>>
>> --
>>   Matthew Kerwin
>>   http://matthew.kerwin.net.au/
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> DNSOP mailing list
>> DNSOP@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
>
>

-- 
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