This proposal is technically very precise, which I appreciate, but I find the semantics puzzling. What does it mean for a domain name to carry a "protected wetland area" record? What does it mean for a domain name to indicate a "supply voltage"?
It seems to me that these registries are intended to apply to many subjects, including physical objects and organizations, but the examples shown do not look like assertions that can sensibly be made about domain names. My personal preference would be to invite these standards bodies to define a registry of assertions about domain names, which we can then import as a new RR type of this kind. Alternatively, if these assertions are intended to be sensible, I believe we need significant additional guidance regarding the meaning of these records. Are we speaking about the name itself, or some other entity linked to that name? Does the UNECE/ISO record describe the other entities indicated by other records on the same name? Or is it describing the owner of the zone? Whatever direction we go, I would also like to see confirmation (perhaps via liaison statements) that UNECE and ISO have consensus in favor of this approach. --Ben On Wed, Sep 9, 2026 at 12:59 PM Bill Woodcock <[email protected]> wrote: > > Esteemed DNSOP folks: > > Patrik and I have posted a new individual draft, and welcome your review: > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-woodcock-faltstrom-external-registry-rrtypes/ > > Abstract: > > This document defines two DNS resource record types, UNECE and ISO, > which convey numeric values paired with codes drawn from registries > maintained by external standards organizations: the United Nations > Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) and the International > Organization for Standardization. Neither proposed RRTYPE duplicates > the external registries into IANA registries; each carries codes > verbatim and uses the semantics defined by the external maintainer. > The document specifies presentation and wire formats for both types, > requests the assignment of two decimal RRTYPE identifiers under the > Expert Review process of BCP 42, and suggests a common design pattern > that may serve as a model for future RRTYPEs seeking to make external > registries usable from the DNS without duplication. > > These RRtypes are needed to support ongoing work in the DIEM working group. > > One question on which we think input might be particularly useful: We > defined these with one RRTYPE per maintainer organization, where the > alternative would have been a single generic external-registry type > discriminated by organization _within_ the data. We chose the former; > we assume that the argument against would be that additinal RRTYPEs > would be needed if the pattern gets reused. > > RFC 6895 templates for both types were submitted to > [email protected] on 14 August, and the two RRTYPEs are > assigned... This draft is about standardizing their use so that they can > be referenced within the DIEM RFCs and elsewhere. > > Thanks in advance for your thoughts and feedback, > > -Bill > > _______________________________________________ > DNSOP mailing list -- [email protected] > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
