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

Adam Roach <> Thu, 29 March 2018 22:39 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B17C12783A; Thu, 29 Mar 2018 15:39:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.889
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 ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bpy2rCY-JdbT; Thu, 29 Mar 2018 15:39:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2E8D6128D2E; Thu, 29 Mar 2018 15:39:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from Svantevit.local ( []) (authenticated bits=0) by (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
X-Authentication-Warning: Host [] claimed to be Svantevit.local
To: John C Klensin <>, Warren Kumari <>,
Cc: Applications and Real-Time Area Discussion <>, dnsop <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <alpine.OSX.2.21.1803211104210.9553@ary.local> <> <5F44FA5B42805C52479DE491@PSB> <> <1DF1564CC2B88726B2B54CF4@PSB> <> <32837C4DF5CB5BDD00DAD0FD@PSB> <> <C10EFF0FB6AC68625A75D485@PSB> <> <> <> <305CF8969698D734073250E4@PSB>
From: Adam Roach <>
Message-ID: <>
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: <>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] [art] Another look - draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf-05.txt
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-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.:

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.