On 01/03/2016 16:39, John Levine wrote:
> The other which I prefer is simply to put the four _proto tags into > the new underscore registry. Add a note that they have subnames from > the RFC 6335 services registry, and for anew new protocol tags try to to > keep the protocol names consistent with the keywords in the protocol > number registry. This, exactly. I'd suggest that perhaps the keywords from the protocol registry (or a canonical representation thereof, for those that don't match LDH) should actually be reserved ? > I see the universe of underscore tags falling into three categories. > > 1. Tags that mean something under a hostname. This includes the > _proto tags and things like _domainkey and _vouch. > > 2. Tags that only mean something under a _proto tag. This is > the set of service names in the RFC 6335 registry and _nnn (port number) > used to name TLSA records. > > 3. Tags that only mean something under some other underscore tag. > This is a very small list, _adsp._domainkey and _report._dmarc are > the only ones I know. > > It would be useful to define the registry for the first kind of tags. > The second already has a registry, the third is uninteresting since it > has no collision issues. All that, too. Ray _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
