Re: An IANA Registry for DNS TXT RDATA (I-D Action: draft-klensin-iana-txt-rr-registry-00.txt)

John C Klensin wrote: >> Still, the draft may assure new usages compatible with each >> other. > > That is the hope. The problem is that an existing and an new usages may not be compatible. >> If we need subtypes because 16bit RRTYPE space is not enough >> (I don't think so), the issue should b

Re: An IANA Registry for DNS TXT RDATA (I-D Action: draft-klensin-iana-txt-rr-registry-00.txt)

--On Saturday, August 31, 2013 23:50 +0900 Masataka Ohta wrote: > The draft does not assure that existing usages are compatible > with each other. It absolutely does not. I actually expect it to help identify some usages that are at least confusing and possible incompatible. > Still, the dra

Re: An IANA Registry for DNS TXT RDATA (I-D Action: draft-klensin-iana-txt-rr-registry-00.txt)

The draft does not assure that existing usages are compatible with each other. Still, the draft may assure new usages compatible with each other. However, people who want to have new (sub)types for the new usages should better simply request new RRTYPEs. If we need subtypes because 16bit RRTYPE

Re: An IANA Registry for DNS TXT RDATA (I-D Action: draft-klensin-iana-txt-rr-registry-00.txt)

--On Saturday, August 31, 2013 02:52 -0700 manning bill wrote: > given the nature of the TXT RR, in particular the RDATA field, > I presume it is the path of prudence to set the barrier to > registration in this new IANA registry to be -VERY- low. That is indeed the intent. If the document is

Re: An IANA Registry for DNS TXT RDATA (I-D Action: draft-klensin-iana-txt-rr-registry-00.txt)

given the nature of the TXT RR, in particular the RDATA field, I presume it is the path of prudence to set the barrier to registration in this new IANA registry to be -VERY- low. Or is the intent to create a "two" class system, registered and unregistered types? /bill On 30August2013Friday, at

Re: An IANA Registry for DNS TXT RDATA (I-D Action: draft-klensin-iana-txt-rr-registry-00.txt)

Hi. I'm going to comment very sparsely on responses to this draft, especially those that slide off into issues that seem basically irrelevant to the registry and the motivation for its creation. My primary reason is that I don't want to burden the IETF list with a back-and-forth exchange, partic

Re: An IANA Registry for DNS TXT RDATA (I-D Action: draft-klensin-iana-txt-rr-registry-00.txt)

On 30 aug 2013, at 21:35, John C Klensin wrote: > The "more prefixes" versus "more RRTYPES" versus subtypes versus > pushing some of these ideas into a different CLASS versus > whatever else one can think of are also very interesting... and > have nothing to do with whether this registry should

Re: An IANA Registry for DNS TXT RDATA (I-D Action: draft-klensin-iana-txt-rr-registry-00.txt)

On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 10:38 AM, Cyrus Daboo wrote: > Hi Phillip, > > > --On August 30, 2013 at 10:16:46 AM -0400 Phillip Hallam-Baker < > hal...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Service discovery requires prefixes. >> >> Here is a draft that works fine (except for the IETF review mistake). Just >> put IE

Re: An IANA Registry for DNS TXT RDATA (I-D Action: draft-klensin-iana-txt-rr-registry-00.txt)

--On Friday, August 30, 2013 11:48 -0400 Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: >> I believe that draft was superseded by RFC6335 and all >> service names (SRV prefix labels) are now recorded at >> > assignments/service-names-**port-numbers/service-names-** >> port-numbers.xhtml

Re: An IANA Registry for DNS TXT RDATA (I-D Action: draft-klensin-iana-txt-rr-registry-00.txt)

This is helpful feedback. We are looking at how the listing of the registries is used by the community. There have been suggestions of adding keywords to help when people search for registries. As the list of registries grows, we want to make sure it is useful and that registries can easily be fo

Re: An IANA Registry for DNS TXT RDATA (I-D Action: draft-klensin-iana-txt-rr-registry-00.txt)

Hi Phillip, --On August 30, 2013 at 10:16:46 AM -0400 Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: Service discovery requires prefixes. Here is a draft that works fine (except for the IETF review mistake). Just put IETF last call on it: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gudmundsson-dns-srv-iana-registry-04

Re: An IANA Registry for DNS TXT RDATA (I-D Action: draft-klensin-iana-txt-rr-registry-00.txt)

On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 9:35 AM, John C Klensin wrote: > Hi. > > Inspired by part of the SPF discussion but separate from it, > Patrik, Andrew, and I discovered a shortage of registries for > assorted DNS RDATA elements. We have posted a draft to > establish one for TXT RDATA. If this requires

An IANA Registry for DNS TXT RDATA (I-D Action: draft-klensin-iana-txt-rr-registry-00.txt)

Hi. Inspired by part of the SPF discussion but separate from it, Patrik, Andrew, and I discovered a shortage of registries for assorted DNS RDATA elements. We have posted a draft to establish one for TXT RDATA. If this requires significant discussion, we seek guidance from relevant ADs as to whe