John C Klensin wrote: > > From that point of view, namespaces are actually > per-RRTYPE and the right way to design this document would be as > a registry of "_"-introduced keywords, with subregistries for > each RRTYPE with which those keywords can be used. Given the > way the DNS works, at least as I understand it, there is no DNS > protocol conflict between > _foo IN XYZ Data1 > and > _foo IN ABC Data2 > > Using the same keyword in both cases may be a bad idea [...]
This sort of thing already happens: Both SRV and TLSA use the _tcp and _udp labels. Perhaps the difference is subtle since in both cases the label denotes the transport protocol. But names do represent different things -- a service provided for a logical entity v. a port of a physical host. Which also reminds me: The DANE RRtypes, ie., TLSA, SMIMEA, and OPENPGPKEY all use underscore labels and are currently missing from the initial table in section 3.1. Kind regards, Martin _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
