Subject: [dnsext] SRV prefix registry

From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2011 08:20:26 -0500

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.

As a practical matter the registry will have to be 'first come first
served' for the second tier names at least. Perhaps an expert review for
proposals to introduce a new group (_tcp, _udp, _port ... ).

The same registry would be shared across all prefixed protocols.

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

---

From: "Everhart, Craig" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2011 08:46:20 -0500

Would it be over and above what's in RFC 6335?

From: Phillip Hallam-Baker [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Thursday, December 22, 2011 8:20 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [dnsext] SRV prefix registry

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'.

---

From: "John Levine" <[email-masked]>
Date: 22 Dec 2011 22:19:11 -0000

>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.

R's,
John

---

From: Paul Hoffman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2011 14:39:38 -0800

> 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

---

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2011 16:43:53 -0800

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Paul Hoffman
> Sent: Thursday, December 22, 2011 2:40 PM
> To: John Levine
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [dnsext] SRV prefix registry
> 
> 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.

Willing to help edit/shepherd such a document if needed.

-MSK

---

From: "John R. Levine" <[email-masked]>
Date: 23 Dec 2011 00:05:01 -0500

>> completely different. ...

> Willing to help edit/shepherd such a document if needed.

I have an old draft lying around that we can start with.

Sec 5.2 of RFC 6335 is the part that says that the service name prefixed 
by an underscore is the label that goes on a SRV record, and says that 
"the Service Label MUST be a service name as defined herein with an 
underscore prepended."

But other RFCs such as 3921, 4386, 5509, and 6186 define underscore labels 
to use as service names in SRV records, some of which don't match service 
names in the IANA service registry, so if you believe 6335, those names 
are now invalid, which probably would surprise the people using _pres and 
_im service labels.  I think they're all in other registries, so IANA 
knows about them, but they're still Service Labels.

R's,
John

---

From: Ray Bellis <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2011 09:55:33 +0000

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'.

Isn't this similar to what Dave Crocker already sent to DNSOP?

<http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-crocker-dns-attrleaf-06.txt>

Ray

---

From: Masataka Ohta <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2011 19:30:08 +0900

> DNSEXT closes is the lack of an IANA registry for SRV prefixes.

Does that matter?

As RFC2782 specifies:

   Service
        The symbolic name of the desired service, as defined in Assigned
        Numbers [STD 2] or locally.

   Proto
        The symbolic name of the desired protocol, with an underscore
        (_) prepended to prevent collisions with DNS labels that occur
        in nature.

SRV users are responsible to feed proper base domain names
to applications properly interpret service and protocol
names.

> use. They should be recorded 'somewhere'.

I can't see any problem.

						Masataka Ohta