In article <9bdde6a6-7ee8-43a7-ab97-84286e82f...@icann.org>, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoff...@icann.org> wrote: >> My only concern is that I hope kskrol-sentinel and mta-sts are not held up >> while we quickly hammer out this labels registry. > >MTA-STS is already an RFC, so there is nothing to hold up. I don't think that >the IESG would hold up Sentinel because this registry will have other >values from existing RFCs. > >> Question: does 8145 (key tag) fall into this bucket? > >I didn't put it there because the label only applies for query type NULL, but >others might disagree and want it in the registry.
It seems to me that the most useful purpose for this registry is to identify names that are resolved using the normal DNS protocol (not like .local or .onion) but that are treated specially by some application(s) above the DNS stack. So the 8145 key tag would go in, as would evertything in _attrleaf, the latter likely by reference. As to whether it's best or worst practice, I'd stay away from that and just clarify that the bar for adding new entries is high because of the risk that they will collide with existing non-special use. R's, John -- Regards, John Levine, jo...@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
