dave, i wasn't going to reply at all, since your snark is a turn-off.
however, john decided to make this thing real, so now i'm stuck with it.
srv has a registry. that's working. that need not change.
adding another registry for other rr types who want to have well known
underscored names will harm nobody and i'm unopposed.
paul
re:
Dave Crocker wrote:
On 3/21/2018 4:05 AM, John R. Levine wrote:
Harmonization for the sake of harmonization is bad, and very little
Internet System technology gets it. Just do new stuff better.
I agree completely. So please forgive my not understanding how your
first and third comments are relevant to the current topic, which
pertains to ensuring that new behaviors use the new model.
I'm not Paul, but I'm guessing that he is referring to retroactively
changing the naming rules for SRV and other RRs, rather than
documenting existing practice.
John,
Your attempt at clarification is equally confusing to me, since it, too,
seems to have nothing to do with the current effort.
The effort is to create a registry -- which obviously differs from
existing practice -- and to have that registry be used, going forward.
Both the creation and the future use deviate fundamentally from
'existing practice'.
d/
--
P Vixie
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
