I wrote a note to Peter and his co-author on this discussion and we(chairs) feel that Paul W is correct in saying _signal is too generic.
We should not overload any underscore label for multiple purposes. If another type of operator signalling appears, a new label can be acquired. Being specific in this situation is a *good* thing. It is not difficult to request a new underscore name, the process was made lightweight. The underscore registry is used by application folks as much if not more than DNS folks. Additionally in the Domain Verification Techniques document, there is a recommended approach to use application-specific underscore prefix labels https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-dnsop-domain-verification-techniques-04.html#name-scope-indication I apologize to the implementers on this. Unless the working group speaks up, then the advice of Paul Wouters, as one of the expert reviewers for the registry, should be the suggestion. thanks tim On Wed, May 8, 2024 at 4:03 PM John Levine <jo...@taugh.com> wrote: > It appears that libor.peltan <libor.pel...@nic.cz> said: > >Hi all, > > > >On the other hand, couldn't it actually be beneficial if the signalling > >zone name is generic enough, and if (in theory on the future) it is > >shared with possibly completely different signals, possibly unrelated to > >DNSSEC? > > It doesn't seem very likely to me that someone would come up with an > unrelated scheme that somehow used the same zone structure. And it's > not like there's any shortage of potential name strings. > > _dnssec or maybe _dnssec-signal tell people what the name is used for. > > R's, > John > > _______________________________________________ > DNSOP mailing list -- dnsop@ietf.org > To unsubscribe send an email to dnsop-le...@ietf.org >
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list -- dnsop@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to dnsop-le...@ietf.org
