Re: [dnsext] WGLC: RFC6195bis IANA guidance

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.

> I believe that internal hyphens should be allowed within RRTYPE and
> CLASS mnemonics. We do not know what future mnemonics or sets of
> mnemonics will be required. Better to remain more flexible here.

There appears to be no real-world requirement to do so. The justification for
flexibility would best be debated if/when some genuine need arises.

The collective decision of a multitude of worthy authors, over a span of more
than 25 years, has been to treat RRTYPE mnemonics as simple Algol/Fortran
style identifiers, even when some clearly had the opportunity to do otherwise.

The regex should be tightened to make explicit a de facto standard observed
by prominent members of the IETF engineering community.

The unmodified regex has the unintended and undesirable consequence that
it allows the IANA tail to wag the IETF dog.

> I have no problem with making the Regex 2 exclusion slightly stronger
> so going with your changed Regex 2 is fine with me.
+

--Dick
_______________________________________________
dnsext mailing list
dnsext@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext