IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dnsext] rfc6195bis registration template clarification

Olafur Gudmundsson <ogud@ogud.com> Thu, 03 May 2012 18:37 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 627C521F84EB; Thu, 3 May 2012 11:37:05 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ietf.org; s=ietf1; t=1336070225; bh=znUsnrm+onUCWhn5aVM1PF/lxE9ucf8+6E8IGSAAvsA=; h=Message-ID:Date:From:MIME-Version:To:References:In-Reply-To:Cc: Subject:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help: List-Subscribe:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:Sender; b=yX391YEczJHuJvhHg+bM4HAkcwdC8mMI8obA6vImXj/2DxrF5WgDEvNAu6S7E0u0p +ZJ98388qqjEjm5fvw87apTOe0xowd5nNKiOl2BTfnDQRSQJiOn8FIwu2/x7HFIZKv Nw9ob29vlwu7NBc/cJDGfBdokI8Z57mJ1DRRE1NM=
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 84B6F21F84EB for <dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 3 May 2012 11:37:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 zAiDohX+2372 for <dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 3 May 2012 11:37:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from stora.ogud.com (stora.ogud.com [66.92.146.20]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA84D21F84DE for <dnsext@ietf.org>; Thu, 3 May 2012 11:37:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [IPv6:::1] (nyttbox.md.ogud.com [10.20.30.4]) by stora.ogud.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q43IaxAq005971; Thu, 3 May 2012 14:36:59 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from ogud@ogud.com)
Message-ID: <4FA2D047.1@ogud.com>
Date: Thu, 03 May 2012 14:36:55 -0400
From: Olafur Gudmundsson <ogud@ogud.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120420 Thunderbird/12.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@gmail.com>
References: <201204231837.UAA01660@TR-Sys.de> <CAF4+nEHhKHh7vxTj9qCvbf0=OCxRcakmr+W6EwPfYaY2sux=Qg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAF4+nEHhKHh7vxTj9qCvbf0=OCxRcakmr+W6EwPfYaY2sux=Qg@mail.gmail.com>
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.72 on 10.20.30.4
Cc: Alfred HÎnes <ah@tr-sys.de>, dnsext@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [dnsext] rfc6195bis registration template clarification
X-BeenThere: dnsext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
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: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; Format="flowed"
Sender: dnsext-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: dnsext-bounces@ietf.org

I'm not, meta types are for DNS software consumption so adding meta 
types involves processing.

	Olafur


On 02/05/2012 15:49, Donald Eastlake wrote:
> I'm OK with the below suggested change to the appellation template.
>
> Thanks,
> Donald
> =============================
>   Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
>   155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA
>   d3e3e3@gmail.com
>
> On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 2:37 PM, Alfred HÎnes<ah@tr-sys.de>  wrote:
>> I tried to figure out whether the rfc1995bis-ixfr draft needs
>> to undergo the RRtype Expert Review per RFC 6195[bis].
>>
>> It looks like that review only pertains to Data and Meta-RRtypes,
>> (and the draft -- targeting Standards Track -- needs IETF review),
>> but the registration policy table for RRtypes (entry for range
>> 128-255) could be misunderstood to indicate otherwise.
>>
>> When looking at the registration template in RFC 6195[bis],
>> I missed a structured opportunity for the applicant to indicate
>> whether the application is for a Data RR or Meta-RR, which would
>> be significant for IANA to select a proper numerical range in the
>> assignment process.
>>
>> So I suggest to amend clause B. of the template in Appendix A of
>> the rfc6195bis I-D as follows:
>>
>> OLD:
>>
>> |  B. Submission Type:
>> |     [ ] New RRTYPE
>> |     [ ] Modification to existing RRTYPE
>>
>> NEW:
>>
>> |  B. Submission Type:
>> |     [ ] New RRTYPE
>> |     [ ] Modification to existing RRTYPE
>> |
>> |     Kind of RRTYPE:
>> |     [ ] Data RR
>> |     [ ] Meta-RR
>>
>> As an alternative, a new numbered item might be inserted; that
>> would cause the need to renumber the exicsting items, which perhaps
>> is less desirable for backwards compatibility with RFC 6195.
>> A third alternative would be using item numbers "B.1." and "B.2.".
>>
>> Best regards,
>>   Alfred.
>>
> _______________________________________________
> dnsext mailing list
> dnsext@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext
>
>
>

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email