IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> Sat, 31 August 2013 21:15 UTC

Return-Path: <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
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 C0A5811E818A for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 31 Aug 2013 14:15:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.09
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.09 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_JP=1.244, HOST_EQ_JP=1.265]
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 nId+OdZG3TTt for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 31 Aug 2013 14:15:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp (necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp [131.112.32.132]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 3EC0011E818F for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 31 Aug 2013 14:15:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 22980 invoked from network); 31 Aug 2013 21:10:28 -0000
Received: from necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp (HELO ?127.0.0.1?) (131.112.32.132) by necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp with SMTP; 31 Aug 2013 21:10:28 -0000
Message-ID: <52225C88.8090107@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
Date: Sun, 01 Sep 2013 06:13:44 +0900
From: Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130801 Thunderbird/17.0.8
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: An IANA Registry for DNS TXT RDATA (I-D Action: draft-klensin-iana-txt-rr-registry-00.txt)
References: <314C280ADBC42CC60123EF3D@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <35373CD9-8583-4283-952B-9ABD2141E74B@isi.edu> <B6453291BFB6FFDD3C65119A@JcK-HP8200.jck.com>
In-Reply-To: <B6453291BFB6FFDD3C65119A@JcK-HP8200.jck.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-2022-JP"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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 21:15:32 -0000

The draft does not assure that existing usages are compatible
with each other.

Still, the draft may assure new usages compatible with each other.

However, people who want to have new (sub)types for the new usages
should better simply request new RRTYPEs.

If we need subtypes because 16bit RRTYPE space is not enough
(I don't think so), the issue should be addressed by itself
by introducing a new RRTYPE (some considerations on subtype
dependent caching may be helpful), not TXT, which can assure
compatibilities between subtypes.

For the existing usages, some informational RFC, describing
compatibilities (or lack of them) between the existing usages,
might help.

						Masataka Ohta

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email