Responding to your additional comments...
On 10/8/2018 11:43 PM, Adam Roach wrote:
Echoing comments from my review of draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf: I believe this
document needs to also include RFC 6763 and RFC 4386; and that it should not
include RFC 6733. Please see that review for details.
RFC 6733 (Diameter):
Section 5.2 #3 cites SRV usage with underscore details. So it
should remain in -fix, to trigger review of this text if/when the spec
is revised.
However the entry in the base table, citing it, should be removed,
because the RFC 6733 _tls text is an example and not a spec.
RFC 6763:
Wow. Whole new RR category for the table, for PTR usage (in the
base spec, as well as -fix.)
If I am reading 6763 correctly, in terms of 'global' underscored
use and distinguishing its 'hypotheticals' from actual usage, it only
reserves _tcp and _udp. (For example, its use of _ipp is second-level
and therefore not global.)
RFC 4386:
SRV usage. So, yeah, it's in -fix.
§§2.1 and 2.2:
An effort has been made to locate existing drafts that
do this, register the global underscored names, and list them in this
document.
I think this text ("list them in this document") is left over from before this
document was split from draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf.
oops. However I think it useful to highlight the possibility of names'
having been missed in the initialization of the registry -- and your
review here has nicely demonstrated the issue... -- so rather than drop
that sentence, I've modified it to:
An effort has been made to locate existing drafts that do this,
register the global underscored names, and list them in the initial
set of names added to the registry.
§2.3:
This ties back to my discuss on draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf, and needs to be
changed in a way that is consistent with however that issue is resolved. The
current list of entries added by draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf strongly implies that
the contents of https://www.iana.org/assignments/enum-services were
automatically imported into the namespace created by the Underscore Global
Registry by the simple existence of RFC 7553. If that's the case, it seems that
the following text in this document...
For any document that specifies the use of a "URI" RRset
...doesn't capture the real process here. As RFC 7553 will continue to exist
into the future, it seems that the trigger is addition of new Enumservice
entries, rather than the explicit specification of a new URI RRset.
Given the choice of de-coupling maintenance of the tables, there is no
goal to make an entry into the underscore table for each new name in
enumservice. Rather there is a need to make an entry in the underscore
table for every URI use of a new underscore entry.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
