Re: [dnssd] draft-sekar-dns-ul

[Chris Box <[e-mail]>]

Ted,

Just picking up on some of the key points.

On Mon, 2 Aug 2021 at 14:40, Ted Lemon <[e-mail]> wrote:

>
> The reason for the KEY having a different lease time is so that the domain
> name can be claimed without being usable for service discovery. When the
> other records expire, the KEY remains to hold the name until it expires, so
> if the host renews before then, no other host can claim the name. We could
> do this for some other record, but the KEY record has the virtue that it's
> useful for authentication. It's true that this is currently only used by
> SRP, though. We could make this apply to more records, but I don't know of
> a use case for that, and if we come up with one later we can add another
> EDNS0 option—the number space is not small.
>

Understood. I don't have a strong opinion; it's one for the working group
to ponder (along with the IPR).


> Is it worth looking at the draft through the lens of the EDM program? For
>> example should it be extensible to separate out other RRtypes? Should
>> greasing come into the picture? The answer might be "not in this case", but
>> I thought it worth at least thinking about.
>>
>
> I have no idea what this means—can you elaborate?
>

This is
https://www.iab.org/activities/programs/evolvability-deployability-maintainability-edm-program/
.

I was particularly thinking of the "E" part:

Evolvability: Encourage protocols to design for extensibility and greasing,
and promote the use of extension points to prevent ossification. Make it
easy for people, especially those who aren’t steeped in IETF process, to
know which extension points are the right ones to use for a given protocol
(and which ones should be considered more stable/ossified), and make sure
there aren’t high allocation barriers to use those extension points.


This draft elaborates:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-iab-use-it-or-lose-it-01

Chris