On 3/29/18 5:02 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
However, I believe that this discussion is, however
unintentionally, a distraction from a far more important issue.
The way the DNS, and particularly DNS queries, are defined makes
the idea of a namespace for all labels starting with "_" very
difficult and potentially a source of confusion. While sorting
the registry by RRTYPE is an improvement over earlier versions,
the correct structure is to have subregistries by RRTYPE, each
with whatever keywords (starting with underscore) are
appropriate for use with it listed.
I'll note that I made a similar suggestion back in August, but was
convinced by people I presumed to know more about DNS than I do that I
only thought this was okay because I had a completely incorrect notion
of what DNS names really mean.
See, e.g.:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/art/RsvttUAnSKI9SntCft8c84EGMT0
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/art/ESNRdIBjRYiyVQcRx5zwGVdoHa8
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/art/MZ35ZO8Uig9VXeeHCy1u-1LBtTI
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/art/T4DbIpeyTafs4KWx0Vji3e8Aw9I
I still don't fully understand the nature of the objections I cite above
or the assertions that having separate tables for different RRTYPEs is
somehow broken. Based on my (admittedly lay) understanding of how DNS is
used by other protocols, I agree with your proposal that having distinct
tables for each RRTYPE makes far more sense than the current structure.
/a
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
