Re: [DNSOP] Adam Roach's Discuss on draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf-13: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net> Tue, 09 October 2018 19:21 UTC

Return-Path: <dhc@dcrocker.net>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5FDEE129BBF; Tue, 9 Oct 2018 12:21:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.49
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.49 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=dcrocker.net
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LnhfDm4lFWKU; Tue, 9 Oct 2018 12:20:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from simon.songbird.com (simon.songbird.com [72.52.113.5]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E04A71293FB; Tue, 9 Oct 2018 12:20:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [172.16.20.49] ([64.80.128.22]) (authenticated bits=0) by simon.songbird.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/Debian-4.1ubuntu1) with ESMTP id w99JLIfZ020478 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 9 Oct 2018 12:21:20 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=dcrocker.net; s=default; t=1539112882; bh=nKHjG0nXsoiqlVUJ8pgOH9YyIoLFBeKG+rzKFNID8fM=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=ap+49PqV1aMMKjNCVYkVKTfu3R7SxgmDTCLSIufmpyf2k8O4d2J9UzcwSliPEPLq4 WKUOSFgU/6RJk1OroGEx500Z3K2wTFAqcErt3krWysSNEBMCaBE7+oxR3si7pz2j2S 1LlJ9X1rokO+0iBZEUNutD/LTi+reMPHxnU/lV/s=
To: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net>
Cc: Tim Wicinski <tjw.ietf@gmail.com>, benno@NLnetLabs.nl, dnsop@ietf.org, draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf@ietf.org, dnsop-chairs@ietf.org
References: <153905130877.18723.10309754622387806714.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <3498289a-ac7d-6518-991d-f90c4d764e21@dcrocker.net> <e9ba71f9-5196-e23c-1a4e-c4c0e003b526@nostrum.com>
From: Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net>
Message-ID: <1fee8510-e7e2-bb42-05f2-325e9487925e@dcrocker.net>
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2018 15:21:00 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.2.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <e9ba71f9-5196-e23c-1a4e-c4c0e003b526@nostrum.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/q74Hmo-Ys4dBENJf_XxgEYuTdSY>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Adam Roach's Discuss on draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf-13: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <dnsop.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dnsop/>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsop@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2018 19:21:02 -0000

On 10/9/2018 2:45 PM, Adam Roach wrote:
> This is based on an assumption that document authors who add 
> enumservices are more likely to notice the need [1] to add their service 
> name to two tables than the IANA are. Given the respective levels of 
> rigor, that seems like a losing bet.


There is certainly a substantive discussion to have about this, since 
the working group did.

But I'll suggest something simple, in the hope that it actually 
simplifies things in process terms:

      This issue was discussed at some length within the working group,
      including disagreements of the sort you raise now.  Eventually the
      working group finally settled on the choices made in the draft.


That is, this is a matter of some tradeoffs that the working group 
considered.


d/

ps. FWIW Personal comment:  having to coordinate tables based the SRV 
spec is unfortunate.  Thinking about having to factor in the URI details 
pretty much blew me by the fact of it's using /two/ tables and how it 
used them.



-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net