After some back and forth with Dave, I realized I missed what seems to be
to be a large change: this draft redefines the naming rules for SRV and
URI.
The current rule is that SRV is _service._protocol where the protocol is
from a short list including _tcp and _udp and the service is from the IANA
Service Name and Transport Protocol Port Number Registry most recently
defined by RFC 6335. This draft proposes that the service names now come
from a newly defined second-level name registry in the draft. The URI
record uses the same namespace, but nobody believes it's widely used so
it's less of an issue.
This seems to be a large change for very little benefit, and
unlikely to be backward compatible unless we can identify every service
name now in use with SRV which seems unlikely.
R's,
John
G'day. This concerns an activity in dnsop, but the wg chair has quite
reasonably suggested running a significant, proposed change past apps folk,
since the work affects a number of existing and future apps efforts. (In
fact, the effort was first triggered by the DKIM work, more than 12 years
ago...)
The domain of discourse is _underscore domain names, used for defining a
special place to use some DNS resource records, such as TXT and SRV.
There are quite a few, existing documents that define such use, all without
the benefit of a common registry. Hence the danger of name collision. The
attrleaf effort is seeking to define a registry for holding existing
_underscore names and defining new ones.
Besides defining the registry, the task requires updating existing
specifications to use it. The attrleaf draft has attempted to perform both
tasks in a single document, but this has made for a confused and confusing
document. (There's a larger lesson here, in spec writing...)
More recent discussions (well, actually, last August) in dnsop, pointed
toward splitting registry definition from existing document updating, and the
note below points to a new draft that does the first. The note also charts
out the plan for the updating document.
Comments?
d/
-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: [DNSOP] Fwd: New Version Notification for
draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf-03.txt
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2018 17:35:29 -0700
From: Dave Crocker <d...@dcrocker.net>
Reply-To: dcroc...@bbiw.net
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
To: dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>
Folks,
I'll limit what should be an extensive and elaborate apology to just this:
I'm sorry for the year of inactivity.
The -03 version should provide some useful substance of progress.
I've gone over last summer's comments and the -03 version should reflect what
the wg agreed to. Basically, it has been significantly streamlined,
essentially to reflect a clean-sheet model of the world. That is, it doesn't
deal with the ugliness that SRV, et al, created. It merely establishes the
two registries we need, long term, and populates them. This document should
have continuing utility.
-03 defines two registries, 'global' and 'second-level'. I'm suspicious of
how short the global one is, though it does make sense.
As noted in the document, absent major concerns with the substance of the
document, please send me or the list s/old/new/ types of change suggestions,
and if the change is for a reference, I'd love the suggestion to be
<reference> xml...
A second document will attempt to fix up the uglinesses in some existing
documents, to get them to align with a world that has these registries. It
should be viewed as a transitional document, though we all know how glacial
'transitions' are in the Internet...
Deciding how to pursue that reasonably has been the effort. The changes this
'fixes' document defines will be to documentation, but not to existing
operation. Existing uses in the field will be preserved.
Here's the approach I'm taking:
1. Simple underscore usage
For many/most specifications that use underscore naming, the text merely
says to use it. They are straightforward.
These specifications need to be listed in this document, explicitly, so
that later updates to them will know to deal with the revisions called for by
this document.
But this document doesn't really need s/old/new kinds of precise detail
for them. Rather than provide precise language for changing each of these, I
propose to provide some generic text, and generic IANA Considerations. This
will permit this Fixes document to be cited as Updating those RFCs.
2. SRV and URI
These need more detailed text, very much in the s/old/new style.
The current text in them does a use-by-reference of existing tables
defined for other purposes. The Update text will, instead, specify a
requirement for adding entries in the Global or Common Second-Level
registries.
d/
-------- Forwarded Message --------
Name: draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf
Revision: 03
Title: DNS Scoped Data Through '_Underscore' Naming of Attribute
Leaves
Document date: 2018-03-19
Group: dnsop
Pages: 14
URL: https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf-03.txt
Status: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf/
Htmlized: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf-03
Htmlized: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf
Diff: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf-03
Regards,
John Levine, jo...@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
