>> 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. > >Could you elaborate on that history and why you think you need >different registration rules?
RFC 2782 says that the service name is "from RFC1700" and doesn't say which section. I've seen varying interpretations, from meaning "any name registered anywhere in any IANA registry" to "the name from the port-numbers registry". The latter is particularly odd (you need to have a statically assigned port number in order to get a name to be able to use the record that allows you to use a dynamic port number), but seems fairly prevalent. I think that these names need different rules for two reasons: a) I don't think there's a need to have globally unique values for the "service" of a SRV record - it's OK if there's an _spf._udp.example.com even if _spf is reserved as the "top level" reserved label. b) It's too high a barrier to require people who have validly been using values such as _http._tcp.example.com under the RFC 2782 rules to write an RFC in order to register the usage. Bill . dnsop resources:_____________________________________________________ web user interface: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/dnsop.html mhonarc archive: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/dnsop/index.html
