Re: [DNSOP] [art] New Version Notification for draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf-03.txt

[Dave Crocker <[e-mail]>]

On 3/21/2018 8:03 AM, Paul Vixie wrote:
> dave, i wasn't going to reply at all, since your snark is a turn-off. 

Snark?  You think my note was "crotchety, snappish; sarcastic, 
impertinent, or irreverent"?  It wasn't any of those things, though 
perhaps it's interesting you thought it was.  But only perhaps.

Your note made no obvious sense to me, since it began with what is 
really a platitude (that I really do agree with) and ended with a 
generality that had no obvious linkage to the current work.


> however, john decided to make this thing real, so now i'm stuck with it.
> 
> srv has a registry. that's working. that need not change.
> 
> adding another registry for other rr types who want to have well known 
> underscored names will harm nobody and i'm unopposed.

Much of the discussion of the current topic -- previously and now -- has 
tended to stray from the pragmatics, whereas that is the only thinking 
driving my concerns and suggestions.  In particular, some people seem to 
have a mystical -- or equally impractical -- view of how name collisions 
will be avoided between independent registries making assignments out of 
the same name space.

I prefer to take as simple an approach as possible: have a single 
registry control all allocations out of a name space.


So if you will please explain:

   1.  How the SRV underscore registration process and the new 
registration process will avoid collisions

   2.  How people revising existing specs that use _underscore naming 
will know that their document needs to use the new registry

it would be helpful.

d/

-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net