Re: [DNSOP] Adam Roach's Discuss on draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf-13: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Dave Crocker <[e-mail]>]

On 10/8/2018 10:15 PM, Adam Roach wrote:
> My top-line concern is that, while the table established by this document
> appears to intend to be a strict superset of the Enumservices table, there are
> no instructions of any kind to the IANA that would result in these tables
> remaining in sync -- that is, when a new service is added to the "Enumservice
> Registrations" table, one might presume that it needs to also appear in the
> new registry established by this document.


Adam,

Ongoing dependence on these other tables was the original model, and for 
a long time.  It is not the model now.

A major motivation for making this change was exactly to avoid the 
synchronization challenge you note. So the round of effort that produced 
the document split to a base and and a -fix also produced a change in 
the use of the independent tables.

The current specification /eliminates/ dependence on these other tables.

The goal has been to register all the names that are known to be used, 
from the various other tables, and then modify the specs that were 
originally written using those other tables to, instead, require making 
further additions directly and only to the _underscore registry.

There was quite a bit of discussion about the challenge of 
synchronization.  This was not helped by the fact that the IANA folk are 
so accommodating and expressed a willingness to attempt to keep things 
in sync. However it isn't reasonable to task them with that on-going 
synchronization effort: it's certain to fail at some point.  So instead 
we eliminated the requirement.

d/

-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net