Re: [DNSOP] [apps-discuss] Draft of interest in DNSOP: draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf

["John R Levine" <[e-mail]>]

> First, when creating the URI RR I felt a registry WAS needed. The mess with SRV could not be accepted.

RFC 6335 cleaned up the SRV mess pretty completely.

> 1. Merge of all sources we have, i.e. what will the initial list of prefixes look like?
> 2. When adding things to this table, what is really required?

For URI, the prefixes are all of the enumservices, plus the four SRV 
protocols _udp _tcp _sctp _dccp.  The umpteen thousand service names only 
appear as sub-names of the four protocols so they don't matter here.

One possibility would be to add four dummy entries to the enumservices 
table to reserve the protocol names, although I think Dave has reasonable 
concerns about how you make sure to add another entry when someone defines 
another service in 2027.

For Dave's registry, I think it's adequate to point to the enumservices 
registry, and do something about the four SRV protocols, perhaps set up a 
registry for those, or have an entry type field in Dave's registry.

I haven't thought too hard about conflicts with names for other stuff, 
such as the TXT records with _domainkeys and _dmarc prefixes.  I think 
they don't matter since the RR types are different, but there could be 
interactions I haven't considered yet.

Regards,
John Levine, [e-mail], Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly