Re: An IANA Registry for DNS TXT RDATA (I-D Action: draft-klensin-iana-txt-rr-registry-00.txt)

manning bill <bmanning@isi.edu> Sat, 31 August 2013 09:53 UTC

Return-Path: <bmanning@isi.edu>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 199A411E8136 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 31 Aug 2013 02:53:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Fy6YUQXBLEFo for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 31 Aug 2013 02:53:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from vapor.isi.edu (vapor.isi.edu [128.9.64.64]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5EB1411E8132 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 31 Aug 2013 02:53:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.4] (h27.129.49.24.static.bajabb.com [24.49.129.27] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0) by vapor.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r7V9qKns007276 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Sat, 31 Aug 2013 02:52:31 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: An IANA Registry for DNS TXT RDATA (I-D Action: draft-klensin-iana-txt-rr-registry-00.txt)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1283)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
From: manning bill <bmanning@isi.edu>
In-Reply-To: <314C280ADBC42CC60123EF3D@JcK-HP8200.jck.com>
Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2013 02:52:20 -0700
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <35373CD9-8583-4283-952B-9ABD2141E74B@isi.edu>
References: <314C280ADBC42CC60123EF3D@JcK-HP8200.jck.com>
To: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1283)
X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-MailScanner-From: bmanning@isi.edu
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2013 09:53:11 -0000

given the nature of the TXT RR, in particular the RDATA field,
I presume it is the path of prudence to set the barrier to registration
in this new IANA registry to be -VERY- low.

Or is the intent to create a "two" class system, registered and unregistered types?

/bill


On 30August2013Friday, at 6:35, John C Klensin wrote:

> Hi.
> 
> Inspired by part of the SPF discussion but separate from it,
> Patrik, Andrew, and I discovered a shortage of registries for
> assorted DNS RDATA elements.  We have posted a draft to
> establish one for TXT RDATA.  If this requires significant
> discussion, we seek guidance from relevant ADs as to where they
> would like that discussion to occur.
> 
> Three notes:
> 
> * As the draft indicates, while RFC 5507 and other documents
> explain why subtypes are usually a bad idea, the registry
> definition tries to be fairly neutral on the subject -- the idea
> is to identify and register what is being done, not to pass
> judgment. 
> 
> * While the use of special labels (in the language of 5507,
> prefixes and suffixes) mitigates many of the issues with
> specialized use of RDATA fields, they do not eliminate the
> desirability of a registry (especially for debugging and
> analysis purposes).
> 
> * While examining the DNS-related registries that exist today,
> we discovered that some other registries seemed to be missing
> and that the organization of the registries seemed to be
> sub-optimal.  We considered attempting a "fix everything" I-D,
> but concluded that the TXT RDATA registry was the most important
> need and that it would be unwise to get its establishment bogged
> down with other issue.  The I-D now contains a temporary
> appendix that outlines the other issues we identified.  IMO,
> thinking through the issues in that appendix, generating the
> relevant I-D(s), and moving them through the system would be a
> good exercise for someone who has little experience in the IETF
> and who is interested in IANA registries and/or DNS details.  I
> am unlikely to find time to do the work myself but would be
> happy to work with a volunteer on pulling things together.
> 
>    best,
>      john
> 
> 
> ---------- Forwarded Message ----------
> Date: Friday, August 30, 2013 05:52 -0700
> From: internet-drafts@ietf.org
> To: i-d-announce@ietf.org
> Subject: I-D Action: draft-klensin-iana-txt-rr-registry-00.txt
> 
> 
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line
> Internet-Drafts directories.
> 
> 
> 	Title           : An IANA Registry for Protocol Uses of Data
> with the DNS TXT RRTYPE 	Author(s)       : John C Klensin
>                          Andrew Sullivan
>                          Patrik Faltstrom
> 	Filename        : draft-klensin-iana-txt-rr-registry-00.txt
> 	Pages           : 8
> 	Date            : 2013-08-30
> 
> Abstract:
>   Some protocols use the RDATA field of the DNS TXT RRTYPE for
> holding    data to be parsed, rather than for unstructured free
> text.  This    document specifies the creation of an IANA
> registry for protocol-    specific structured data to minimize
> the risk of conflicting or    inconsistent uses of that RRTYPE
> and data field.
> 
> 
> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-klensin-iana-txt-rr-registry
> 
> [...]