IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [e2md] the RFC5935 process

Ray Bellis <Ray.Bellis@nominet.org.uk> Tue, 18 May 2010 08:50 UTC

Return-Path: <Ray.Bellis@nominet.org.uk>
X-Original-To: e2md@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: e2md@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6039A3A6C32 for <e2md@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 May 2010 01:50:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.316
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.316 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.206, BAYES_05=-1.11, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8+M7A1kXVWY4 for <e2md@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 May 2010 01:50:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx3.nominet.org.uk (mx3.nominet.org.uk [213.248.199.23]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 45D4C3A6C31 for <e2md@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 May 2010 01:46:26 -0700 (PDT)
DomainKey-Signature: s=main.dk.nominet.selector; d=nominet.org.uk; c=nofws; q=dns; h=X-IronPort-AV:Received:Received:From:To:Subject: Thread-Topic:Thread-Index:Date:Message-ID:In-Reply-To: Accept-Language:Content-Language:X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:Content-Type:Content-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; b=N6LdqNoFUKfqCL3oPjwhKdqTfkgtTymla/it/aVdLZNP4RRAqzfHB6/5 b3HSD82K2JY0kCYFsubZc/vB8TMAg8r1A/P1HPh0yazPmerpYLYM4JrEr joAV8h6/tnMBPWJ;
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=nominet.org.uk; i=Ray.Bellis@nominet.org.uk; q=dns/txt; s=main.dkim.nominet.selector; t=1274172383; x=1305708383; h=from:sender:reply-to:subject:date:message-id:to:cc: mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:content-id: content-description:resent-date:resent-from:resent-sender: resent-to:resent-cc:resent-message-id:in-reply-to: references:list-id:list-help:list-unsubscribe: list-subscribe:list-post:list-owner:list-archive; z=From:=20Ray=20Bellis=20<Ray.Bellis@nominet.org.uk> |Subject:=20Re:=20[e2md]=20the=20RFC5935=20process|Date: =20Tue,=2018=20May=202010=2008:46:16=20+0000|Message-ID: =20<C8181268.5331%ray.bellis@nominet.org.uk>|To:=20E.164 =20To=20MetaData=20BOF=20discussion=20list=20<e2md@ietf.o rg>|MIME-Version:=201.0|Content-Transfer-Encoding:=20quot ed-printable|Content-ID:=20<ca07420b-3bdf-4fc0-9f3a-f4d4f fea527a>|In-Reply-To:=20<289C39E5-AFC7-4F99-867A-CAAB6E24 5D82@rfc1035.com>; bh=tTD/l7i6JWwGKaaYjLuHXCwyJ0WwLc9/TvJXwQ7hAvU=; b=ZxoTse/3VFEDnUFncqp8Kbc4ognnlrQThRgv/E089LP8fc7SE3l2rsf2 Tvf9PL022YH5uEF8s3B8QBRCN3doELdbLqr2z79dTLWm1z0G5a0RnbBZV r7hOQr5dKB8BwJ7;
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.53,254,1272841200"; d="scan'208";a="24322079"
Received: from wds-exc2.okna.nominet.org.uk ([213.248.197.145]) by mx3.nominet.org.uk with ESMTP; 18 May 2010 09:46:18 +0100
Received: from WDS-EXC1.okna.nominet.org.uk ([fe80::1593:1394:a91f:8f5f]) by wds-exc2.okna.nominet.org.uk ([fe80::7577:eaca:5241:25d4%20]) with mapi; Tue, 18 May 2010 09:46:18 +0100
From: Ray Bellis <Ray.Bellis@nominet.org.uk>
To: "E.164 To MetaData BOF discussion list" <e2md@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [e2md] the RFC5935 process
Thread-Index: AQHK9e/hZEjyyTCGxkSwF5TLxWQJ4ZJW4UcA
Date: Tue, 18 May 2010 08:46:16 +0000
Message-ID: <C8181268.5331%ray.bellis@nominet.org.uk>
In-Reply-To: <289C39E5-AFC7-4F99-867A-CAAB6E245D82@rfc1035.com>
Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <ca07420b-3bdf-4fc0-9f3a-f4d4ffea527a>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [e2md] the RFC5935 process
X-BeenThere: e2md@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: "E.164 To MetaData \(E2MD\) BOF discussion list" <e2md.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/e2md>, <mailto:e2md-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/e2md>
List-Post: <mailto:e2md@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:e2md-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/e2md>, <mailto:e2md-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 18 May 2010 08:50:39 -0000

> It's meant to be simple and straightforward to get new RR type codes
> assigned -- no RFC required! -- as long as the new RR does not mess
> with zone cut semantics or entail changes to additional section
> processing. This is perhaps the most important thing to bear in mind
> if a new RRtype turns out to be the path this BOF will follow.

And this indeed is another reason why Send-N doesn't use a new RR.

It _could_ have been designed to be a new RR which is returned automagically
in the additional section whenever the original DDDS query returned no NAPTR
records (RCODE = 0, ANSWERS = 0).

However that would require "additional section processing", and adding new
logic to DNS implementations to cope with that is a very high bar to
overcome.

Ray

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email