Re: [DNSOP] [art] Another look - draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf-05.txt

Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> Thu, 29 March 2018 22:39 UTC

Return-Path: <adam@nostrum.com>
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 7B17C12783A; Thu, 29 Mar 2018 15:39:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.889
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.889 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, T_SPF_HELO_PERMERROR=0.01, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 bpy2rCY-JdbT; Thu, 29 Mar 2018 15:39:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2E8D6128D2E; Thu, 29 Mar 2018 15:39:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from Svantevit.local (99-152-146-228.lightspeed.dllstx.sbcglobal.net [99.152.146.228]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id w2TMcsNn062641 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Thu, 29 Mar 2018 17:38:55 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from adam@nostrum.com)
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host 99-152-146-228.lightspeed.dllstx.sbcglobal.net [99.152.146.228] claimed to be Svantevit.local
To: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>, Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net>, dcrocker@bbiw.net
Cc: Applications and Real-Time Area Discussion <art@ietf.org>, dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>
References: <f7b85bac-b050-5003-2df0-a48b1ef2f929@dcrocker.net> <e1f41670-ada8-eaac-468c-c712b338a10b@dcrocker.net> <alpine.OSX.2.21.1803201804440.8940@dhcp-8344.meeting.ietf.org> <A7711F58-5145-49E8-9158-B2F94D0EABBF@redbarn.org> <7c168dc1-2ea7-d47e-78b7-0380e5d0aa84@dcrocker.net> <alpine.OSX.2.21.1803211104210.9553@ary.local> <5244d327-f8ea-1590-c663-1d92e0b194c4@dcrocker.net> <5F44FA5B42805C52479DE491@PSB> <alpine.OSX.2.21.1803211507380.9666@dhcp-935d.meeting.ietf.org> <1DF1564CC2B88726B2B54CF4@PSB> <20180326171842.0eacbdc4@smaug.local.partim.de> <32837C4DF5CB5BDD00DAD0FD@PSB> <fe24bb1d-a2e2-c50a-4293-b9c4cadcfc69@dcrocker.net> <C10EFF0FB6AC68625A75D485@PSB> <CAHw9_i+69CGrZnW6XqvP6Qk1Cw+QoFKHCzqO4Hb=C6UkDvZkVg@mail.gmail.com> <e18bc940-184c-1031-b24b-d549d126dff4@dcrocker.net> <CAHw9_i+81GzP_FPdmJzCO8-sMtCM+W+SmbQ=90fFOE+BS2dzFw@mail.gmail.com> <305CF8969698D734073250E4@PSB>
From: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
Message-ID: <401307d2-b8bf-5d77-6a3d-e978fc84c834@nostrum.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2018 17:38:49 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.13; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <305CF8969698D734073250E4@PSB>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/wbcCrs66PQhjyBc6ROKojENWX_I>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] [art] Another look - draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf-05.txt
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: Thu, 29 Mar 2018 22:39:02 -0000

On 3/29/18 5:02 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
> However, I believe that this discussion is, however
> unintentionally, a distraction from a far more important issue.
> The way the DNS, and particularly DNS queries, are defined makes
> the idea of a namespace for all labels starting with "_" very
> difficult and potentially a source of confusion.  While sorting
> the registry by RRTYPE is an improvement over earlier versions,
> the correct structure  is to have subregistries by RRTYPE, each
> with whatever keywords (starting with underscore) are
> appropriate for use with it listed.

I'll note that I made a similar suggestion back in August, but was 
convinced by people I presumed to know more about DNS than I do that I 
only thought this was okay because I had a completely incorrect notion 
of what DNS names really mean.

See, e.g.:

https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/art/RsvttUAnSKI9SntCft8c84EGMT0
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/art/ESNRdIBjRYiyVQcRx5zwGVdoHa8
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/art/MZ35ZO8Uig9VXeeHCy1u-1LBtTI
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/art/T4DbIpeyTafs4KWx0Vji3e8Aw9I

I still don't fully understand the nature of the objections I cite above 
or the assertions that having separate tables for different RRTYPEs is 
somehow broken. Based on my (admittedly lay) understanding of how DNS is 
used by other protocols, I agree with your proposal that having distinct 
tables for each RRTYPE makes far more sense than the current structure.

/a