-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
