On 28 Aug 2016, at 18:58, Dave Crocker wrote:
On 8/28/2016 6:42 PM, John Levine wrote:
atrik'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?
Asking will give us a measure of 'willingness', not a measure of
'long-term perfection'. This difference is fundamental. I'm worried
about the latter, while I consider the former to be a distraction.
Simply put, specifying a smal task that requires humans to perform
perfectly at random, very (very) infrequent times, is a plan designed
to fail.
Can't this be checked by scraping IANA on a daily basis? That is, if
IANA makes a mistake, it will be detected by the next scrape and IANA
can be told to revert.
--Paul
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
