Re: [DNSOP] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf-fix-04: (with COMMENT)

[Dave Crocker <[e-mail]>]

Responding to your additional comments...


On 10/8/2018 11:43 PM, Adam Roach wrote:
> Echoing comments from my review of draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf: I believe this
> document needs to also include RFC 6763 and RFC 4386; and that it should not
> include RFC 6733. Please see that review for details.


RFC 6733 (Diameter):

      Section 5.2 #3 cites SRV usage with underscore details.  So it 
should remain in -fix, to trigger review of this text if/when the spec 
is revised.

      However the entry in the base table, citing it, should be removed, 
because the RFC 6733 _tls text is an example and not a spec.


RFC 6763:

      Wow.  Whole new RR category for the table, for PTR usage (in the 
base spec, as well as -fix.)

      If I am reading 6763 correctly, in terms of 'global' underscored 
use and distinguishing its 'hypotheticals' from actual usage, it only 
reserves _tcp and _udp.  (For example, its use of _ipp is second-level 
and therefore not global.)


RFC 4386:

      SRV usage.  So, yeah, it's in -fix.



> §§2.1 and 2.2:
> 
>>   An effort has been made to locate existing drafts that
>>   do this, register the global underscored names, and list them in this
>>   document.
> 
> I think this text ("list them in this document") is left over from before this
> document was split from draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf.

oops.  However I think it useful to highlight the possibility of names' 
having been missed in the initialization of the registry -- and your 
review here has nicely demonstrated the issue... -- so rather than drop 
that sentence, I've modified it to:

      An effort has been made to locate existing drafts that do this,
      register the global underscored names, and list them in the initial
      set of names added to the registry.


> §2.3:
> 
> This ties back to my discuss on draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf, and needs to be
> changed in a way that is consistent with however that issue is resolved. The
> current list of entries added by draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf strongly implies that
> the contents of https://www.iana.org/assignments/enum-services were
> automatically imported into the namespace created by the Underscore Global
> Registry by the simple existence of RFC 7553. If that's the case, it seems that
> the following text in this document...
> 
>>   For any document that specifies the use of a "URI" RRset
> 
> ...doesn't capture the real process here. As RFC 7553 will continue to exist
> into the future, it seems that the trigger is addition of new Enumservice
> entries, rather than the explicit specification of a new URI RRset.

Given the choice of de-coupling maintenance of the tables, there is no 
goal to make an entry into the underscore table for each new name in 
enumservice.  Rather there is a need to make an entry in the underscore 
table for every URI use of a new underscore entry.


d/
-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net

-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net