According to Paul Wouters <[email protected]>: >This is a bit of a weird one. Normally, we would be a bit careful with >such generic prefixes and RFC 8460 doesn't actually say anything >about the _tls prefix, only about the _smtp._tls prefix. > >Presumably, we would want everyone under _tls to use a protocol/service >prefix but that is not something a FCFS registry can enforce. So I >think it is best to just accept a registration request once it is filed >and perhaps we can find someone who wants to write a short draft that >updates 8460 to clarify how to use the _tls prefix.
It is a little odd to have a two-label prefix with only one second label, but I'd guess they're modelling it after the prefixes for SRV. Early drafts of 8552 had both the _service and _proto labels, but we decided only to include the _proto ones since that's what you need to prevent collisions. You could ask the authors of 8460 what else they think might be under _tls but I'd be surprised if the answer was anything other than "I dunno". R's, John _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
