On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 3:57 PM Dave Crocker <d...@dcrocker.net> wrote:
> Folks, > > G'day. > The latest wg's agreed approach for the Attrleaf specification is to > have a clean-sheet document that does /not/ reflect the problematic > history, with a companion specification that does. That is, the first > document is to specify the registry as if there were no history of > independent _underscored names (other than creating registry entries for > those existing node names.) The current draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf > specification provides the clean-sheet approach. I think it is within > epsilon of doing what we've agreed it should do. > I'm going to be rude and not answer any of the below questions -- instead, I'm going to mention "SMTP MTA Strict Transport Security (MTA-STS) draft-ietf-uta-mta-sts" (which completed IETF LC, etc a while back). This document uses the label _mta_sts: The MTA-STS TXT record is a TXT record with the name "_mta-sts" at the Policy Domain. For the domain "example.com", this record would be "_mta-sts.example.com". I'm mentioning it so that, when we have a registry, just like _acme-challenge is mentioned in draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf/, we can add it. W > > That leaves the messiness of dealing with the many documents that > created that _underscored history and the requisite cleanup of it, for a > companion document. The document just announced (attrleaf-fix, cited > below) serves that purpose. > > I tried to make the document complete in terms of structure AND detail. > While I think the structural approach of the draft is reasonable, I > don't believe for all the detail that's needed is there. > > For working group review, I suggest folk consider the draft in terms of > 3, basic concerns: > > Clarity: Does the draft adequately explain its purpose and > adequately explain its approach for satisfying that purpose > (separate from its whether it achieves that goal well > enough?) > > Efficacy: Does the draft's approach seem sufficient to it's task? > > Completness: Does the draft have all of the necessary detail and is > all that detail correct? > I'm quite sure the document is /not/ complete and strongly encourage > careful commentary on-list or off, so we can remedy this. > > But please also consider the first two points, especially for a reader > who does not already have deep background in this topic. > > Thanks. > > d/ > > -------- Forwarded Message -------- > .... > A new version of I-D, draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf-fix-00.txt > has been successfully submitted by Dave Crocker and posted to the > IETF repository. > > Name: draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf-fix > Revision: 00 > Title: DNS Attrleaf Changes: Fixing Specifications with > _Underscored > Node Name Use > Document date: 2018-05-03 > Group: dnsop > Pages: 13 > URL: > https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf-fix-00.txt > Status: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf-fix/ > Htmlized: > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf-fix-00 > Htmlized: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf-fix > > > Abstract: > Original uses of an _underscore character as a domain node name > prefix, which creates a space for constrained interpretation of > resource records, were specified without the benefit of an IANA > registry. This produced an entirely uncoordinated set of name- > creation activities, all drawing from the same namespace. A registry > now has been defined. However the existing specifications that use > _underscore naming need to be modified, to be in line with the new > registry. This document specifies those changes. The changes > preserve existing software and operational practice, while adapting > the specifications for those practices to the newer _underscore > registry model. > > > -- > Dave Crocker > Brandenburg InternetWorking > bbiw.net > > _______________________________________________ > DNSOP mailing list > DNSOP@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop > -- I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad idea in the first place. This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair of pants. ---maf
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
