Re: [DNSOP] URI RR labels derived from Enumservices (was: [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC8552 (7064))

[John Levine <[e-mail]>]

It appears that  <[e-mail]> said:
>Shouldn't the labels for Subtypes also go to this (initial) URI Registry?

Nope. The intent of this registry is to list all of the _tags that one
might run into when setting up a new thing, so you don't collide with
tags that other things already use. The subtype tags only appear to
the left of a type tag, so there's no collision problem.

It's the same reason that for SRV and URI we included the small set of
transport tags like _tcp and _udp but not the giant list of service
subtags like _smtp and _https.

My recollection is that we had two overlapping dicussions involving
IANA. One was that the names for URI records are the union of
transport names and enumservice type tags, and there is no provision
to keep the tag names from colliding if there are new ones.

The other was the general issue of multiple registries that are
supposed to stay in sync, and is it adquate to ask IANA to tell people
who update one registry that they should think about the other, also.

R's,
John