On Sep 28, 2018, at 11:27 AM, Warren Kumari <war...@kumari.net> wrote: > > We are adding (at the IESG's request) this (thanks to Terry for the text): > ------ > "The special labels defined here came after extensive IETF evaluation > of alternative patterns and approaches in light of the desired > behaviour (sections 2.1, 2.2) within the resolver and the applied > testing methodology (section 4.3). As one example, underscore > prefixed names were rejected because a number of browsers / operating > systems would not fetch them, as they were not viewed as valid > "hostnames". Attention was paid to the consideration of local > collisions and the reservation of Left Hand Side (LHS) labels of a > domain name, and the impact upon zone operators who might desire to > use a similarly constructed hostname for a purpose other than as > documented here. Therefore, it is important to note that the > reservation of the labels in this manner is definitely not considered > "best practice". > ----- > to the KSK document. The registry creation document should contain some > language explaining that this sort of thing is a poor design-pattern[0], and > should be avoided unless there is a really good reason....
I agree that new document that I volunteered to edit (are there any offers of co-editors?) should have similar language. I fully disagree that it is a "poor design pattern". It has been shown over and over to work well. > but, if people do things like this, having them documented is better than > astonishment. Yes, that's the reason for the registry. --Paul Hoffman
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
