For completeness:
Absent further discussion and agreement in the wg, I taking this
exchange as producing /no/ changes to the spec.
d/
On 7/24/2018 7:58 AM, John Levine wrote:
In article <9da145f4-df6a-4bfa-b3c9-56027b228...@iis.se> you write:
-=-=-=-=-=-
In table 2 on page 9, the draft refers to RFC 2782 for _dccp and _sctp (SRV),
but those “_node names”
are not even mentioned in the RFC. Are they defined elsewhere?
RFC 2782 says that SRV's are named with _proto where proto is is a
protocol name. RFCs 3588 and 6733 say to do _sctp SRV lookups, but
don't further define them, and only have 2782 as an informative
reference. No RFC mentions _dccp.
It seems to me that 2782 is the right reference for _sctp. For _dccp
we've had arguments about whether 2782 says that a SRV can be named by
any protocol so maybe we should put in every protocol in the IANA
registry. That's a lot of dead protocols. A reasonable compromise
would be to start the registry with the names that have some evidence
of being used somewhere, so we could drop _dccp
In the same table, the draft refers to RFC 7553 for a number of URI _node
names, but the references are quite
indirect. Could references to relevant IANA registries be added?
Since RFC 7553 is the place that says that the enumservice names turn
into _node names, I think that's the right reference.
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
