Re: [dnsext] WGLC: RFC6195bis IANA guidance

Chris Thompson <cet1@cam.ac.uk> Fri, 06 July 2012 18:56 UTC

Return-Path: <dnsext-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: namedroppers-archive-gleetwall6@lists.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-namedroppers-archive-gleetwall6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0357111E809F; Fri, 6 Jul 2012 11:56:12 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ietf.org; s=ietf1; t=1341600972; bh=hxFSLETjSdgipDGtGAlLamQAR/jmuPfwPX9Dwekd9tE=; h=Date:From:To:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References:Mime-Version: Subject:Reply-To:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post: List-Help:List-Subscribe:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type: Sender; b=x1iqq7o7aUUDbxsbOLx/Tf9sGXGVc4Hkhh2fSDFS1ppihfrLEVeI1KhXWlF1r94hx 7/UEZe72elno/F/+wQ2fxfERITtzrexIkq/X7vAEGcUOf/rgIadNuUhwrLFfJ6VeCl bZoKHftp0P9MQvNMREUuNzKkpdd6vPdkjDt4uoqU=
X-Original-To: dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90DDF11E809F for <dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 6 Jul 2012 11:56:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-2.000, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 shbl--x1wCUX for <dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 6 Jul 2012 11:56:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ppsw-43.csi.cam.ac.uk (ppsw-43.csi.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.143]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 06FA611E8079 for <dnsext@ietf.org>; Fri, 6 Jul 2012 11:56:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Cam-AntiVirus: no malware found
X-Cam-SpamDetails: not scanned
X-Cam-ScannerInfo: http://www.cam.ac.uk/cs/email/scanner/
Received: from hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk ([131.111.8.54]:44788) by ppsw-43.csi.cam.ac.uk (smtp.hermes.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.159]:25) with esmtpa (EXTERNAL:cet1) id 1SnDhR-0004su-md (Exim 4.72) for dnsext@ietf.org (return-path <cet1@hermes.cam.ac.uk>); Fri, 06 Jul 2012 19:56:17 +0100
Received: from prayer by hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk (hermes.cam.ac.uk) with local (PRAYER:cet1) id 1SnDhR-0004wJ-1c (Exim 4.67) for dnsext@ietf.org (return-path <cet1@hermes.cam.ac.uk>); Fri, 06 Jul 2012 19:56:17 +0100
Received: from [131.111.11.47] by webmail.hermes.cam.ac.uk with HTTP (Prayer-1.3.5); 06 Jul 2012 19:56:16 +0100
Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2012 19:56:16 +0100
From: Chris Thompson <cet1@cam.ac.uk>
To: dnsext@ietf.org
Message-ID: <Prayer.1.3.5.1207061956160.6326@hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk>
In-Reply-To: <CAF4+nEGDpdkxvDa-+HJRD4gYZf_k4fqj12dNcdCwY6-Ah3ENDg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4FD62E4E.4020007@ogud.com> <CAKW6Ri5=c9N+wo_EUn7WrvzNZFVJkpfHcv0OKx8OBJ9ZLzJdGw@mail.gmail.com> <CAF4+nEEqn-S6+8oTvmjeF6eKq+hmiov+AG+S3O41Nq12eUxDCw@mail.gmail.com> <CAKW6Ri7mW0nuEudtyxVp=hoDvJNS8+O4G_LtVfU7nFkQKt-Omw@mail.gmail.com> <CAF4+nEGDpdkxvDa-+HJRD4gYZf_k4fqj12dNcdCwY6-Ah3ENDg@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Prayer v1.3.5
Mime-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [dnsext] WGLC: RFC6195bis IANA guidance
X-BeenThere: dnsext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: cet1@cam.ac.uk
List-Id: DNS Extensions working group discussion list <dnsext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dnsext>, <mailto:dnsext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsext>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext>, <mailto:dnsext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"
Sender: dnsext-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: dnsext-bounces@ietf.org

On Jul 5 2012, Donald Eastlake wrote:

>Hi Dick,
>
>On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 6:06 PM, Dick Franks <rwfranks@acm.org> wrote:
>> Donald,
>>
>> My apologies for late response.
>>
>>
>> On 22 June 2012 19:10, Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@gmail.com> wrote:
>> ...
>>>> [3.1 paragraph 4]
>>>> and [3.2 paragraph 4]
>>>>
>>>> Regexes:
>>>>
>>>>                         [A-Z][A-Z0-9\-]*[A-Z0-9]
>>>>
>>>>                        (TYPE|CLASS)(0|[1-9][0-9]*)
>>>>
>>>> could be simplified to:
>>>>
>>>>                         [A-Z][A-Z0-9]*
>>>>
>>>>                        (TYPE|CLASS)[0-9]*
>>>
>>> That's not simplification, that's change.
>> A simplification of the underlying production rule for RRTYPE mnemonics,
>> which inevitably flows through to the regex.
>
>OK, it is a simplification of the RegEx, but one I don't agree with.

Regardless of the hyphen question in the first regexp, I think the
change to the second is probably desirable. I don't think RFC 3597
makes it totally unambiguous that unnecessary leading zeros are not
allowed after TYPE or CLASS, and it is sensible to protect parsers
that are sloppy in this respect.

Otherwise, one could argue that TYPE65536 ought to be allowed for
a new RR type mnemonic, because it clearly isn't meaningful as a
generic one.

This is all a bit reminiscent of the deprecation of all-digit TLDs.
Ought ".000" or ".256" to be allowed because they are would not
be part of the natural representation of IPv4 addresses? 

-- 
Chris Thompson               University of Cambridge Computing Service,
Email: cet1@ucs.cam.ac.uk    New Museums Site, Cambridge CB2 3QH,
Phone: +44 1223 334715       United Kingdom.
_______________________________________________
dnsext mailing list
dnsext@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext