-03 defines two registries, 'global' and 'second-level'. I'm suspicious of how short the global one is, though it does make sense.

It's missing _dmarc, and the type names from the Enumservice registry which are used to name URI records.

2. SRV and URI

  These need more detailed text, very much in the s/old/new style.

The current text in them does a use-by-reference of existing tables defined for other purposes. The Update text will, instead, specify a requirement for adding entries in the Global or Common Second-Level registries.

The second level registry, though, is a problem, because it tries to redefine the naming rules for SRV records. RFC 2782 said that SRV second level names are from the services in Assiged Numbers STD 2. RFC 3400 abolished STD 2 in favor of an IANA registry. That registry, the Service Name and Transport Protocol Port Number Registry, was cleaned up by RFC 6335 which reiterates the fact that the service names in that registry are the services used to name SRV records. RFC 7335 states that URI records are named the same as SRV, and also says you can use enumservice _subtype._type.

We need to change the description of the second level name registry to say that SRV and URI are special, they use names from Ports and Services at the second level and URI uses enumservice subtypes, and take out all of the SRV entries. What's left is the grabbag of second level names used for other stuff like NAPTR and _adsp._domainkey.

R's,
John

_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop

Reply via email to