IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Patrik Fältström <paf@frobbit.se> Fri, 30 August 2013 19:47 UTC

Return-Path: <paf@frobbit.se>
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 48C6A21E808F for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 30 Aug 2013 12:47:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.3
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.3 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
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 MzptlmGHiu4y for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 30 Aug 2013 12:47:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.frobbit.se (mail.frobbit.se [IPv6:2a02:80:3ffe::176]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 27A2121E8082 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 30 Aug 2013 12:47:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [IPv6:2a02:80:3ffc::257d:5471:eef1:af91] (unknown [IPv6:2a02:80:3ffc:0:257d:5471:eef1:af91]) by mail.frobbit.se (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 217E82200A; Fri, 30 Aug 2013 21:47:16 +0200 (CEST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.5 \(1508\))
Subject: Re: An IANA Registry for DNS TXT RDATA (I-D Action: draft-klensin-iana-txt-rr-registry-00.txt)
From: Patrik Fältström <paf@frobbit.se>
In-Reply-To: <580EB1DB59FBEF1041667C2C@JcK-HP8200.jck.com>
Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2013 21:47:15 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <121C23AF-C6BE-4099-A635-21CE59C5F477@frobbit.se>
References: <314C280ADBC42CC60123EF3D@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <CAMm+LwhwrNuYfAKri+hK328ULOZwv+sh=rUXm4pAYziMRBW78w@mail.gmail.com> <580EB1DB59FBEF1041667C2C@JcK-HP8200.jck.com>
To: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1508)
Cc: IETF Discussion Mailing List <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: Fri, 30 Aug 2013 19:47:19 -0000

On 30 aug 2013, at 21:35, John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> wrote:

> The "more prefixes" versus "more RRTYPES" versus subtypes versus
> pushing some of these ideas into a different CLASS versus
> whatever else one can think of are also very interesting... and
> have nothing to do with whether this registry should be created
> or what belongs in it.

One of the key messages in RFC 5507 is that one should have a selector of what RR you want in the triple {owner, type, class} and not as part of the RDATA.

This document is about creating a registry for the selectors that obviously are needed *IF* one have structured data in the RDATA part of the TXT resource record type.

Two very different things indeed.

   Patrik

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email