There are two possibly orthogonal issues here: 1. Registration for any _foo that may appear, possibly just the one closest to the root in a given domain name. http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-crocker-dns-attrleaf Its introduction points out that the semantics of records underneath the reserved node name may be restricted; however, this wording may need a bit of work because, e.g., dnssec may need to put records there no matter what the semantics defined elsewhere.
2. Registration for service names used in SRV records. http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-fenner-iana-dns-srv was my proposal some time ago (summary: update 2782 to use the WKS name registry instead of a vague reference to 1700 that many have taken to refer to the port number/name registry, possibly populate the registry, define rules for new registrations). This is related to http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lear-iana-no-more-well-known-ports in that it also says that IANA keeps registrations for SRV records; presumably whether or not IANA charges for well known ports is outside the scope of dnsop. How to move forward? In a way, it's a question of one registry or two. If draft-crocker-dns-attrleaf intends to have all protocols and services used in SRV records as well as the other contents, it could serve as both. However, given the history, I think SRV records need a little bit different registration rules, so it may make sense to split them out into a different registry. The question there would be whether it's just the top-most prefixed label that gets registered in draft-crocker-dns-attrleaf or all of them. Bill . dnsop resources:_____________________________________________________ web user interface: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/dnsop.html mhonarc archive: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/dnsop/index.html
