Re: [DNSOP] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC8552 (7064)

[Dave Crocker <[e-mail]>]

On 8/2/2022 8:04 AM, RFC Errata System wrote:
> Type: Editorial
> Reported by: Bernie Hoeneisen<[e-mail]>
>
> Section: 4.1.2.
>
> Original Text
> -------------
>   | URI        | _acct                 | [RFC6118]     |
>
> Corrected Text
> --------------
>   | URI        | _acct                 | [RFC7566]     |
>
> Notes
> -----
> Wrong reference. Note that is also has an impact to the IANA registry:https://www.iana.org/assignments/dns-parameters/dns-parameters.xhtml#underscored-globally-scoped-dns-node-names


Folks,

 1. Bernie, thanks for bringing this up
 2. Using this case as an example, the history in the attrleaf
    development seems concerning.  The RFC cited for this entry changes,
    over the course of a number of I-D versions.  So, in -13 is was RFC
    7553, -14 is was RFC 7566, and in -15 it went to RFC 6118.
 3. That the published version landed on the wrong choice should raise a
    question possibly about process but especially about understanding.

In Spring, 2018 and again in Fall, 2018, there was some focused 
discussion (see:  dnsop) about _acct, and related strings, and which 
citation to use for the enum-related values.  The choice bounced around, 
as I've cited.  This includes having what is now being deemed the 
'correct' choice in -14...

Note that none of the cited documents refers to the exact string 
"_acct".  So there is a derivation process that seems to be unclear. I 
believe the attrleaf RFC contains no pedagogy about this, but it 
probably should.

Before doing the simple -- but possibly wrong -- thing of agreeing on a 
new -- or, rather, returning to an old -- better RFC citation, I suggest 
there be some community discussion about the why of the right choice and 
consideration of how to document that, this time, this latest choice is 
the truly correct one.


d/

-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net