Subject: Re: [dnsext] SRV prefix registry

From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Jan 2012 18:50:33 -0500

Looks to me as if 6335 addresses all my concerns. The exact set of
procedures really does not matter to me in the slightest, just so long as
there is a defined registry the procedures will adapt as needed.

On reserving other prefixes, all that matters is that the same name does
not get registered for more than one purpose. That argues for a single
registry of prefixes.

I don't care what the rationale, anyone who tries to deploy a new protocol
that is not SPF with the prefix _spf is going to end up causing unnecessary
pain, misery and gnashing of teeth. Chances are that at some point in the
future there will be some prefix based protocol that all 'prefixish' type
schemes would want to use. So the SPF group would likely be rather upset to
find that their ability to participate in some generalized prefix mechanism
had been pre-empted by an unrelated protocol squatting on 'their' prefix.

The assignment criteria is 'expert review'. These are precisely the type of
issue that I would hope the expert would be flagging as problems. If the
name is not available for registration the registry should say so, that is
the purpose of the registry.

I would suggest registering the Transport Protocol 'Other' to cover these
cases and getting the service names reserved. This would appear to be
within the scope of the 'grandfathering' process that IANA and Stuart
Cheshire are already engaged in to transfer his registry over.

On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 5:39 PM, Paul Hoffman <[email-masked]> wrote:

> On Dec 22, 2011, at 2:19 PM, John Levine wrote:
>
> >> Would it be over and above what's in RFC 6335?
> >
> > It might be nice to reserve or otherwise deal with the underscore names
> > used elsewhere in the DNS such as _vouch, _spf, _domainkey, and _adsp.
>
>
> That is a topic change. Phill asked about SRV, and Craig correctly pointed
> out that Phill's concern is already dealt with in RFC 6335. If it is not
> fully dealt with, Phill needs to get section 5 of RFC 6335 updated.
>
> A registry for "underscore names that have been registered" is completely
> different. RFC 6335 is "Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA)
> Procedures for the Management of the Service Name and Transport Protocol
> Port Number Registry": note that that has nothing to do with "underscore
> names". If you want a registry for those, start a new Internet Draft.
>
> --Paul Hoffman
>
> _______________________________________________
> dnsext mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext
>

-- 
Website: http://hallambaker.com/
_______________________________________________
dnsext mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext

---

From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Jan 2012 19:02:50 -0500

Actually Dave is doing two things, one that is covered by 6335 and another
which is subtly different, he is trying to ground the fact that underscore
prefix DNS names are used to apply attributes to the base name.

The defacto position is that underscore prefix names are attributes bound
to a node rather than being distinct nodes in their own right. This is
something that the application layer would like to see caching resolvers
aware of at a minimum.

On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 4:55 AM, Ray Bellis <[email-masked]>wrote:

>
> On 22 Dec 2011, at 13:20, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
>
> One piece of unfinished business that really should be cleared up before
> DNSEXT closes is the lack of an IANA registry for SRV prefixes.
>
> This is now a big problem because people have been taking maters into
> their own hands. I did for SAML and XKMS. There are many thousand SRV
> prefixes in use. They should be recorded 'somewhere'.
>
>
> I can write up a short draft if there is interest.
>
>
> Isn't this similar to what Dave Crocker already sent to DNSOP?
>
> <http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-crocker-dns-attrleaf-06.txt>
>
> Ray
>
>
>