On Nov 7, 2023, at 17:34, Erik Nygren <notificati...@github.com> wrote:
> 
> As discussed at the mic, we should encourage people add labels to the dns 
> node names registry:
> 
> https://www.iana.org/assignments/dns-parameters/dns-parameters.xhtml#underscored-globally-scoped-dns-node-names
> 

So I am one of the Delegated Expert on that registry. So I have some experience 
with its entries.

There is a use case for people registering names in that registry to avoid 
clashing. Eg if Company X would have something database like at _db.example.com 
it would be good not to conflict with Company Y that uses the same record for 
another type of database service on the same prefix. If both do some service 
discovery via dns they might make the wrong assumption about the service they 
are connecting too (eg wrong vendor / product protocol).

But in our use case, there is no real conflict. We are not running a service on 
these dns names. It’s just the dns lookup itself that has the data.

On top of that, we encourage using known vendor name and service name so that 
in itself avoids conflicts. Registering these names is extra effort for 
companies that have no IANA relationship and it will also just pollute the 
underscore registry with a lot of vendor names. It might cause people to need 
to talk to lawyers about trademarks.

It might be good to advise the readers to check the underscore registry to 
avoid collisions, eg for a company that happens to be called dmarc so they can 
use “_dmarc-llc” or something. But I see no reason to register new entries. Eg 
what is the value for Aiven to add _aiven there ? The chance of another company 
called Aiven that also is in tech that also has services they want to validate 
via an _aiven prefix is about zero. And if it happens, it doesn’t actually 
matter if there would be two _aiven records at the customer where each one 
verifies one vendor/service.

Paul
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop

Reply via email to