>Done. > >This will be the third or fourth try for the document. Perhaps there is >now enough community interest to make it happen?
The more I look at this, the more of a mess I find. It's not like it would have been all up to you. RFC 6335 came out five years after the first version of your draft and would have been a fine opportunity to de-mess. Assuming the places in the draft where you refer to the left-most name you mean the right-most name for what gets registered, it needs to make clear what names enable what sub-names. For example, if a name is _tcp or _udp, all of the names in the RFC 6335 service name registry are eligible. This includes _soap-beep and _xmlrpc-beep which are in that registry, and _certificates and _crls which should be but aren't. But RFC 2782 is pretty casual about what protocols other than _tcp and _udp correspond to SRV names. IANA has a protocol registry at http://www.iana.org/assignments/protocol-numbers/protocol-numbers.xhtml but a lot of the entries are not obvious candidates for SRV. On the other hand, RFC 5509 makes _sip a SRV protocol name even though it's also a service. DKIM currently allows _adsp as a subtag, probably not worth making a registry, since there don't seem to be any other likely DKIM subtags. Similarly there's _report._dmarc which seems to be a one-off. R's, John _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
