Subject: [dnsext] WGLC: RFC6195bis IANA guidance

From: Olafur Gudmundsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2012 13:43:42 -0400

Dear colleagues

This message starts a 2 week WGLC for RFC6195bis ending at midnight UTZ 
June 28'th 2012.
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dnsext-rfc6195bis-02

This document addresses known flaws in the RFC6195 (see appendix A).

Please review the document and post a note that you have reviewed the 
document we need a minimum of 5 reviewers.

     Olafur & Andrew
_______________________________________________
dnsext mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext

---

From: Dick Franks <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 16:33:53 +0100

Olafur,

I have reviewed draft-ietf-dnsext-rfc6195bis-02 and offer the
following observations:

[3.1 paragraph 4]
and [3.2 paragraph 4]

Regexes:

                         [A-Z][A-Z0-9\-]*[A-Z0-9]

                        (TYPE|CLASS)(0|[1-9][0-9]*)

could be simplified to:

                         [A-Z][A-Z0-9]*

                        (TYPE|CLASS)[0-9]*

Previous RFC authors have abstained from using the hyphen when
specifying RRTYPE and CLASS mnemonics. Regex 1 should constrain future
authors and IANA to follow established custom and practice. The only
historical exception (NSAP-PTR) lived quietly in RFC1348 and became
obsolete in 1994.

Regex 2, as written, fails to match unknown type and class identifiers
having leading zeroes in the numeric part, which is not explicitly
disallowed by RFC3597.  IMHO the mnemonics CLASS and TYPE (no digits)
should also be disallowed to avoid accidental ingestion of
place-holders if/when any part of this process becomes automated.

Dick

On 11 June 2012 18:43, Olafur Gudmundsson <[email-masked]> wrote:
>
>
>
> Dear colleagues
>
>
>
> This message starts a 2 week WGLC for RFC6195bis ending at midnight UTZ June 28'th 2012.
>
> Please review the document and post a note that you have reviewed the document we need a minimum of 5 reviewers.
>
>
>
>     Olafur & Andrew
>

---

From: Donald Eastlake <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2012 14:10:57 -0400

Hi Dick,

>                        (TYPE|CLASS)(0|[1-9][0-9]*)

That's not simplification, that's change.

> historical exception (NSAP-PTR) lived quietly in RFC1348 and became

I believe that internal hyphens should be allowed within RRTPE and
CLASS mnemonics. We do not know what future mnemonics or sets of
mnemonics will be required. Better to remain more flexible here.

> place-holders if/when any part of this process becomes automated.

I have no problem with making the Regex 2 exclusion slightly stronger
so going with your changed Regex 2 is fine with me.

Thanks,
Donald
=============================
 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA
 [email-masked]