Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf-04.txt

Ray Bellis <> Thu, 22 March 2018 21:41 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 898BE12704A for <>; Thu, 22 Mar 2018 14:41:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NP8flRyZoe62 for <>; Thu, 22 Mar 2018 14:41:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 57C7E124B0A for <>; Thu, 22 Mar 2018 14:41:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([]:63079 helo=rays-mbp.local) by ([]:465) with esmtpsa ( (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) id 1ez7xj-0000JF-AQ (Exim 4.72) (return-path <>); Thu, 22 Mar 2018 21:41:31 +0000
References: <>
From: Ray Bellis <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2018 21:41:43 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.13; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf-04.txt
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2018 21:41:39 -0000


I think this is much improved :)

A few nits:

> Each globally-registered underscore name owns a distinct, subordinate
> name space.

except when it doesn't (i.e. the SRV transports all share the *same*
subordinate name space).

- on that note, _sctp and _dccp are missing from the global table.

- the table formatting is pretty poor, do we really need any more
  than just "NAME", "RR" and "REFERENCE"?   The ID field just seems
  to be an alternate mnemonic for the (already unique) underscore
  label itself

- the IANA considerations still refer to the now non-existent common
  second-level table

- it's still only been five years, although it *does* feel like 12 :p

Not a nit:

- is there a reference for IANA "First Come First Served" rules, and
  should we perhaps also mandate "specification required" as a
  pre-condition for registration?   We don't want that table filled
  with any old junk without a stable specification.