Folks (including Patrik)...
Hi.
Checking on where group views are, now that some exchanges have happened
and time has passed...
On 8/3/2016 8:48 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:
And now, my response to John's note...
On 8/3/2016 6:58 PM, John Levine wrote:
The services, on the other hand, were thoroughly cleaned up by RFC
6335. It collected a bunch of informal lists into one place, renamed
a few old names with unfortunate characters, and put them into a tidy
and very large Service Name and Transport Protocol Port Number
Registry. It says in section 5.2 that the service name for a SRV
record MUST follow the syntax rules (ldh with at least one letter and
no leading or trailing or double hyphens, prefixed with an underscore)
and SHOULD be registered in the registry.
If folks agree that this adequately serves the registry function for the
_service, second-level underscore name for SRV and URI, that's fine. As
of Berlin, I thought I heard that there was (still) deviations.
I believe I saw this resolved as a 'nevermind'. That is, the believed
deviations turn out not to be a concern, based on Ray's one posting. Yes?
So after going through all that and then looking at RFC 6335, including
its assorted references to support for SRV, I gather the IANA table in
question is:
Service Name and Transport Protocol Port Number Registry
And the draft -attrleaf- needs to point to this, I believe.
For URI records RFC 7553 says they're either named the same as SRV
records, or they use enumservice names from the Enumservice
Declaring a namespace as the union of two, independently-maintained
registries is a very efficient way to encourage -- actually in
theoretical terms, it guarantees -- collisions.
Patrik's and John 's postings notwithstanding, I'm still concerned about
the proposed way of handling this, namely to rely on IANA to do a manual
check of the two registries the URI RR might call on. First, it does
not seem reasonable to me to impose that burden on the IANA staff and
second a manual process like that is almost certain to produce errors.
On 8/3/2016 9:05 PM, John R Levine wrote:
> I suppose, but since the two registries exist and the URI RFC says to
> use both of them as _name, that horse has left the barn.
I think it left the theoretical barn, but not the practical one. We've
been told that there is not yet any uptake in the URI RR. That makes it
plausible to modify its spec to eliminate this problem.
Really, the burden of trying to have on-going coordination for the URI
RR, between two different registries is worth finding a way to avoid.
The problem is that I am not sure what to suggest that will work for URI
usage.
Suggestions?
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
