> On Jan 13, 2016, at 8:01 PM, John Levine <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Because the client prefix-label a service *name*, so so the port
>> collision issue goes away. We should not cargo-cult designs,
>> the rationale has to carry over logically, and false analogies
>> need to be avoided.
>
> One man's cargo cult is another man's namespace management. Every
> existing use of _<service> names is behind a _<proto> name, and there
> seems to me considerable merit to keep it that way, at the trivial
> cost of a possibly uninteresting _tcp or _udp in the name. If the
> extra five bytes is an issue, I suppose we could use _c rather than
> _client for the client tag.
>
> While saving five characters was a big deal when I was programming
> PDP-8's almost 50 years ago, I don't get it now.
This forces clients that use both TCP and UDP to publish their TLSA
records twice (or better publish one as a CNAME for the other, or
make both CNAMEs to a third thing). Is this really worth it?
Folks are having a hard enough time publishing correct TLSA records,
and remembering to change all the copies.
--
Viktor.
_______________________________________________
dane mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dane
