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

Dave Crocker <> Tue, 09 October 2018 18:22 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 52FB1128CE4; Tue, 9 Oct 2018 11:22:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.49
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.49 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)"
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HK7549T8Pjwm; Tue, 9 Oct 2018 11:22:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5A1DF128CB7; Tue, 9 Oct 2018 11:22:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ([]) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.14.4/8.14.4/Debian-4.1ubuntu1) with ESMTP id w99IN9WC015942 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 9 Oct 2018 11:23:10 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;; s=default; t=1539109391; bh=UUYEr95Tim8iweSVTvHMQ+I6lhiErD8lXQ/u3Vwldb4=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=OpwZywwy7pIV8NU0F4qjYAnPbVsIrG6m1sPOKtFviiCwiXje4NI3AiSm5ytXqF7ya uZgYxFp5KXcHCeCe3/rqqJj0iOOYnPjnSUBa3SHzfJWxvdddEQZvy74b8+f/9y4def myJqdHaSzNBqPa0TOPiRBnNYsIvGJZeiKEaTykWw=
To: Adam Roach <>, The IESG <>, Warren Kumari <>
Cc: Tim Wicinski <>,,,,
References: <>
From: Dave Crocker <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2018 14:22:51 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.2.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Adam Roach's Discuss on draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf-13: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2018 18:22:52 -0000

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.


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.


Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking