Re: [DNSOP] [art] draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf

Dave Crocker <dhc2@dcrocker.net> Fri, 04 August 2017 16:52 UTC

Return-Path: <dhc2@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 9E8AA1323A3 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 4 Aug 2017 09:52:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) 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 jUQDNbalZjxw for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 4 Aug 2017 09:52:51 -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 99BE0132377 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Fri, 4 Aug 2017 09:52:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.168] (76-218-8-128.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net [76.218.8.128]) (authenticated bits=0) by simon.songbird.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/Debian-4.1ubuntu1) with ESMTP id v74GrGKP017809 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 4 Aug 2017 09:53:17 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=dcrocker.net; s=default; t=1501865597; bh=CpYQx0ebSvRy5u7mUcqKdo2mdDV33183rbUKEs89Es4=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:Reply-To:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=DgJZA3MDl3coyC7rM+Oven2au6u3gssolpGTykNwQhi23fKWspfAV+yxWVkh6cRD6 UraA3YPRww2cL2TRzSPwq7H3eJqVN02DjBatNCM+x1ok65ZfTQxzRe30j2X3+BH/H7 M7aWEVyheI87zm/Y4ABALMx4mT2/v0Uf1bSSaKAc=
To: Matthew Pounsett <matt@conundrum.com>
Cc: dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>
References: <CADyWQ+HiVOz1zrhNeEYnzy4hryrhFu+v5GNWqcXdOqQBeB9Cig@mail.gmail.com> <9fc7ff7d-9f5a-ce2b-9fb1-e9b1c9eb0108@nostrum.com> <94641677-d072-3462-1c72-ab203c553eef@dcrocker.net> <CAAiTEH8JwU8qEfCy-XrTFpHV1sQpjtEVzwZfu9=xWQZh2hyDZA@mail.gmail.com>
Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
From: Dave Crocker <dhc2@dcrocker.net>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
Message-ID: <bc7747c4-e045-7c39-9bba-22202d24205f@dcrocker.net>
Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2017 09:52:43 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.2.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAAiTEH8JwU8qEfCy-XrTFpHV1sQpjtEVzwZfu9=xWQZh2hyDZA@mail.gmail.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/rRxg7uMIxyFmabcYT9WWF6Sfv-M>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] [art] draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Fri, 04 Aug 2017 16:52:52 -0000

On 8/4/2017 9:02 AM, Matthew Pounsett wrote:
> Do I understand correctly that the intent is to obsolete existing 
> underscore registries (whether they be actual IANA registries, or just 
> code points listed in a draft) and move their data to a new, central 
> registry?   This seems sensible to me.


Arguably, there aren't any underscore registries.  There are some specs 
that allocate underscore names, but a 'registery' per se is not 
specified anywhere.  That's the motivation for the current draft.

SRV does registration-by-inheritance, but that overloads one registry 
semantic with another.

So I'll take the liberty of rephrasing what you describe as:

      Obsolete the existing inheritance registrations and create 
explicit registrations for the currently-inherited names in use.

d/

-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net