Re: [Last-Call] [Ext] Last Call: <draft-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-bcp-03.txt> (DNS Security Extensions (DNSSEC)) to Best Current Practice

Amanda Baber <> Tue, 27 September 2022 04:13 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 72567C152580; Mon, 26 Sep 2022 21:13:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.906
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.906 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GLQZzM8sJh2s; Mon, 26 Sep 2022 21:13:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7E50FC1524AB; Mon, 26 Sep 2022 21:13:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by ( with ESMTPS id 28R4D3sb018970 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 27 Sep 2022 04:13:04 GMT
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.2.986.29; Mon, 26 Sep 2022 21:13:02 -0700
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 15.02.0986.029; Mon, 26 Sep 2022 21:13:02 -0700
From: Amanda Baber <>
To: John C Klensin <>, Paul Hoffman <>, tom petch <>
CC: "" <>, dnsop <>, "" <>, "" <>, Sabrina Tanamal <>
Thread-Topic: [Last-Call] [Ext] Last Call: <draft-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-bcp-03.txt> (DNS Security Extensions (DNSSEC)) to Best Current Practice
Thread-Index: AQHYz4JFZ81s7e+OBkSajMnM5UOM1K3t+a8AgAS2KYA=
Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2022 04:13:02 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <22E949C1D2F3D4A7D1F0CA69@PSB>
In-Reply-To: <22E949C1D2F3D4A7D1F0CA69@PSB>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/16.63.22070801
x-originating-ip: []
x-source-routing-agent: True
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=baseguard engine=ICAP:2.0.205,Aquarius:18.0.895,Hydra:6.0.528,FMLib: definitions=2022-09-26_11,2022-09-22_02,2022-06-22_01
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Last-Call] [Ext] Last Call: <draft-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-bcp-03.txt> (DNS Security Extensions (DNSSEC)) to Best Current Practice
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Last Calls <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2022 04:13:12 -0000

Hi John,

See [AB] below.

    --On Friday, September 23, 2022 19:25 +0000 Amanda Baber
    <> wrote:

    > Hi,
    > IANA uses the term "registry group" to refer to top-level
    > registries and "registry" to describe a set of registrations
    > (as opposed to a set of sets). There are logistical reasons
    > for this, but the use of the term "registry" in particular
    > matches the usage in ICANN's MoU with the IETF (and our
    > MoU-mandated performance reports).
    > I should add that we still use the term "sub-registry," but
    > only to refer to, e.g., a registry of sub-TLVs for a TLV.


    In the hope of getting something else on which I'm working [1]
    right, some questions about the above: 

    If I look at a protocol assignments page, e.g.,
    is "MAIL Parameters" the "top-level registry" aka "registry
    group", despite the fact that some of the registries on that
    page are associated with different protocols (even if they are
    somehow mail-related and, as we have discussed, there are
    mail-related registries elsewhere)?

[AB] We would call any label in that location the name of the registry group. If "MAIL Parameters" is a poor fit, options might include re-naming it, moving registries elsewhere (while replacing them with links to their new locations), and/or moving other registries into it (and replacing them with links or redirects as necessary). Instructions from ADs might be sufficient. 

    Also some of what I assume are called "registries" ("SMTP
    Service Extensions", "SMTP Service Extension Parameters", "Mail
    Transmission Types", etc.) are subsidiary to other ones there.
    Does that make a difference? 

[AB] This looks like a case where we had trouble converting text-based registries -- specifically, -- to XML. Usually if you see a registries "nested" like the VIA link types, WITH protocol types, and Additional-registered-clauses are nested beneath the "Mail Transmission Types" heading, that nesting is meant to communicate hierarchies like the ones at But this looks like an attempt to communicate a grouping within a group. We don't have a name for this, because our scheme wasn't really built with this in mind, and I can only think of a few other places I've seen it. It would make sense to call "Mail Transmission Types" a registry sub-group, if this sub-grouping should be preserved. We would prefer not to create more sub-groups, as I understand that they're a little problematic for us when placing these in a database.

    And, is "SMTP Service Extension Parameters" properly a
    sub-registry of "SMTP Service Extensions"?  And, forgive my
    ignorance, but what is a "TLV" in this context?

[AB] Our registry structure appears to be describing SMTP Service Extension Parameters as a sub-registry of SMTP Service Extensions, but the decision to present it that way wasn't preserved in our ticketing system. Is it incorrect to place it beneath SMTP Service Extensions? If so, we can simply ask an AD to confirm that we can list it so that it no longer appears to be a sub-registry.

[AB] "TLV" just refers to Type, Length, and Value codepoints. Some examples of TLV and sub-TLV registries can be found at