In article <5abd22aa.7080...@redbarn.org> you write: >> While I think I see a computer science basis for saying that an RR type >> has a namespace, I'm continuing to find the point more confusing than >> helpful, and fear that other readers will, too. >> >> At the least, can you point me to official documents that explain that >> view? I've looked around a bit an haven't found such a specification or >> discussion. > >it only contains a namespace for the purposes of your underscore >registry. no use of _TCP by any other RR type will conflict with the use >of _TCP by SRV, for example. thus, each RR type effectively has its own >registry, whose names need only be unique within that registry. you may >prefer to call it a dictionary rather than a namespace in order to avoid >confusion around what other DNS RFC's call a "namespace".
It depends which end of the telescope you're looking through. For a DNS client, you're right. A _name on FOO and BAR records is unrelated give or take niggles about NXDOMAIN vs. NODATA and what ANY means that we can ignore. For a DNS server, all the records at a given name are in the same zone, so if we invented two uses of _name that would not be managed together, we'd create an eternity of misery for zone maintainers. The way that TLSA reuses _transport names for port numbers rather than services skates close to that line. The current plan to do one registry that includes both _name and rrname is right, but I'm not sure if it'd be useful to add some naming advice along the lines of the above. R's, John _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
