On May 10, 2024, at 05:36, jab...@strandkip.nl wrote: > > I'm interested in where this guidance comes from. > > RFC 2782 to me is the grandfather of underscore labels, and it pretty much > goes out of its way to encourage a hierarchy of underscore labels to anchor > SRV records under, e.g. under _tcp.name and _udp.name.
But if you look at more recent RFCs such as TLSA records, it is narrowed to one specific protocol and port, eg _25._tcp.mx.nohats.ca > I'm not really arguing with conclusion, but I find the guidance vague. If we > really think it's important to make clear statements about this, perhaps we > should write something down in a document and talk about it. Personally I'm > not convinced it's that important, though. I am not against that but I also feel there is some common sense that applies here. For example, experience has shown TXT record parsing of the APEX can cause lots of noisy logging because the TXT at APEX is used by widely different things that are not aware of each other. I think _dsboot or _dnssec or _dns would all be better choices and greatly reduce the risk of getting overloaded by something else, and is useful even if overloading is mostly harmless. Paul (I also liked the suggestion _dasboot ๐, itโs a great intense movie!) _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list -- dnsop@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to dnsop-le...@ietf.org
