On Oct 2, 2018, at 4:56 AM, Tim Wicinski <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > My only concern is that I hope kskrol-sentinel and mta-sts are not held up > while we quickly hammer out this labels registry.
MTA-STS is already an RFC, so there is nothing to hold up. I don't think that the IESG would hold up Sentinel because this registry will have other values from existing RFCs. > Question: does 8145 (key tag) fall into this bucket? I didn't put it there because the label only applies for query type NULL, but others might disagree and want it in the registry. > I think Terry's comment should be in any document describing this registry: > > Therefore, it is important to note that the reservation of the labels in > this manner is definitely not considered "best practice". I cannot disagree more. If Terry wants to write a document telling people what he thinks is the best practice is to creating important protocols like IDNA, that's great. I sincerely doubt he'll get IETF consensus, but he's welcome to try. This document is about the registry. On Oct 2, 2018, at 7:01 AM, Wessels, Duane <[email protected]> wrote: > It feels to me like “this bucket” is not well defined enough at this point to > say whether 8145 falls in it, or not. Shouldn’t the dns-special-labels > draft lay out some guidelines for what goes in the registry and what doesn’t? > Yes. I punted that to the WG. > And maybe even explain in what ways the registry entries are special, not > simply that (someone thinks) they are special? That too. --Paul Hoffman
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
