It appears that Peter Thomassen <pe...@desec.io> said: >The _signal label generically indicates that ns2.foobar.fi likes to signal >something about nohats.ca. Its presence is needed to allow separating the >object from the source without ambiguity. > >We could change _signal to something else, but not to _dnssec-bootstrap as >that's not generic. Suggestions are welcome.
They're all DNSSEC related so how about _dnssec-signal ? >I'd like to add some considerations: > >- The spec has quite a few production implementations (see Section 8), and >changing them would come with significant costs. > >- I don't think the _signal label is in use for the Signal messenger. Even in >case it's used in the future, a collision (in terms of prefix labels + rdtype) >seems unlikely. It's not but _signal is an awfully generic term, and I do not want to count on people inventing sufficiently distinct second level _label names to keep unrelated uses separate. When we were collecting names for the _label registry there were a few places with overlapping names like the URI RRTYPE, and it's a mess. Let's not do it again. R's, John _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
