On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 6:16 AM, Martin Thomson <martin.thom...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 6 July 2017 at 20:07, Hugo Landau <hlan...@devever.net> wrote: > > Vendor-assigned identifiers could be supported as such: > > vnd:example.com/custom-method > > RFC 6648 explains why vendor-prefixes can be a bad idea. I think that > you should do as Yaron suggested and establish a registry. Set the > bar low (specification required would be my choice) and then CABF can > make a new entry as they see fit. In particular, do away with > attaching some sort of semantic to prefixes. > > > 2. Adding a reference to CABF is weird > CAA already has a tag registry. The bar to entry is deliberately low. If you really can't use the existing registry, use the existing one as a template. But the thing with DNS records is that you have a left hand side (domain name, record type) and a right hand side (record data) and the DNS protocol only allows you to select on the left hand side. If you do a CAA query, you are always going to get back the full set of records. So you are always going to have to look at them all. CAA tags are text labels with a deliberately generous number of possibilities. We are not going to run out. Rather than create a subordinate registry, I would prefix within the label.
_______________________________________________ Acme mailing list Acme@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme
