On 10/8/2018 10:15 PM, Adam Roach wrote:
My top-line concern is that, while the table established by this document
appears to intend to be a strict superset of the Enumservices table, there are
no instructions of any kind to the IANA that would result in these tables
remaining in sync -- that is, when a new service is added to the "Enumservice
Registrations" table, one might presume that it needs to also appear in the
new registry established by this document.
Adam,
Ongoing dependence on these other tables was the original model, and for
a long time. It is not the model now.
A major motivation for making this change was exactly to avoid the
synchronization challenge you note. So the round of effort that produced
the document split to a base and and a -fix also produced a change in
the use of the independent tables.
The current specification /eliminates/ dependence on these other tables.
The goal has been to register all the names that are known to be used,
from the various other tables, and then modify the specs that were
originally written using those other tables to, instead, require making
further additions directly and only to the _underscore registry.
There was quite a bit of discussion about the challenge of
synchronization. This was not helped by the fact that the IANA folk are
so accommodating and expressed a willingness to attempt to keep things
in sync. However it isn't reasonable to task them with that on-going
synchronization effort: it's certain to fail at some point. So instead
we eliminated the requirement.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
