>> 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.
So far, so good. >>> 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. Well, either you can persuade Patrik and Olaf to revise RFC 7553 to add a _enumservice psedudo-transport to disambiguate, or you can't. When I look at the enumservice registry, I see that it's not very big and doesn't change very often. Rather than speculating about how hard this would be for IANA, why don't you ask them. Do they have any other groups of registries that they have to monitor for name collisions? How much harder is that than the checking they have to do in a large registry like ports and services to be sure they don't reuse a name? R's, John _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
