On 3/28/2017 12:46 PM, Paul Vixie wrote:
i don't think it's wise to estimate damage by observed complain level. if _ is now in world wide use for all kinds of stuff, you can still say that SRV got it wrong, and that the recommended way to do this kind of thing is different from what SRV did. you could also do what a lot of operating system developers had to do about _ use with C, which is use two underscores in the next design, whose use will be better policed.
Hmmm. So, I missed that you were targeting the narrower issue of SRV, per se, rather than the broader (and shallower) task of attrleaf.
With respect to domain naming -- as opposed to SRV RR details -- the SRV spec is more of a template meta-spec -- guidance for later, specific specs -- than a detailed spec itself.
As such, one can easily mandate defining a modified template for new SRV definitions, going forward.
As John suggests, I think this is independent of the attrleaf task and doesn't affect it.
d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
