Re: [DNSOP] SRV-related _underscore registry (was Re: Call for Adoption: draft-crocker-dns-attrleaf)

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

> The current model in the _Underscore draft is to focus only on the highest 
> level of _underscore naming, and treat any _underscore naming below that as 
> local to the specification registering the highest-level name.

So far so good.

> Given the existing variety of SRV use, I think it's worth having an exception 
> to the model.  That is, rather than only putting SRV's _Proto names into the 
> registry, also register the _Service names.

There's almost 7000 service names in the IANA port and service registry, 
all of which (as far as I can tell) are used only as subnames of _tcp _udp 
and maybe _sctp and _dccp.  They're mostly used for SRV but also for 
NAPTR.  RFC 6335 cleaned up the names with inconvenient characters (slash, 
dot, internal underscore) and set out the rules for adding new service 
names.  There are designated experts for SCTP and DCCP service names so 
they should be able to tell us how widely used the names are.

> My reasoning is that it appears that only _udp and _tcp seem to be in current 
> use as instances of _Proto, and it would be better to fold the range of 
> existing _Service instances into this global _Underscore registry than to 
> create an SRV-specific _underscore registry.

The existing port and service registry already has all of the _service 
names, and is updated as people invent new services.  What's the benefit 
of duplicating it rather than just pointing to it?

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