2. SRV and URI
...
We need to change the description of the second level name registry to say
that SRV and URI are special, they use names from Ports and Services at
the second level and URI uses enumservice subtypes, and take out all of
the SRV entries. What's left is the grabbag of second level names used
for other stuff like NAPTR and _adsp._domainkey.
No. "Special" invites "errors", for on-going administration and operations.
I'm trying to make things simpler and less tangled.
We need to move away from the complexity created by having special rules for
some entries in the registry.
That would be fine except that the Port and Service registry has thousands of
entries, and the named ones (nearly all of them) are valid SRV names. Importing
a handful of names that we guess are commonly used with SRV is the worst of
both worlds.
Either point at the real registry for SRV, or say that this explicitly
redefines the namespace for SRV and see if dnsop will go for that. I don't see
any way you can just ignore RFC 6335 and its predecessors.
ps. I thought the URI RR had no current actual use (or at least very
little.)
I belive that's correct, but again, either we deprecate URI or we deal with its
naming rules.
To get rid of special, add another column to the first table which identifies
the second level namespace. In some cases it's empty, in some cases it's Ports
and Services, in a few it's Enumservice, and in the rest it's the second table.
R's,
John
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
