John C Klensin wrote:
Still, the draft may assure new usages compatible with each
other.
That is the hope.
The problem is that an existing and an new usages may not be
compatible.
If we need subtypes because 16bit RRTYPE space is not enough
(I don't think so), the issue should be
--On Saturday, August 31, 2013 23:50 +0900 Masataka Ohta
mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp wrote:
The draft does not assure that existing usages are compatible
with each other.
It absolutely does not. I actually expect it to help identify
some usages that are at least confusing and possible
given the nature of the TXT RR, in particular the RDATA field,
I presume it is the path of prudence to set the barrier to registration
in this new IANA registry to be -VERY- low.
Or is the intent to create a two class system, registered and unregistered
types?
/bill
On 30August2013Friday, at
--On Saturday, August 31, 2013 02:52 -0700 manning bill
bmann...@isi.edu wrote:
given the nature of the TXT RR, in particular the RDATA field,
I presume it is the path of prudence to set the barrier to
registration in this new IANA registry to be -VERY- low.
That is indeed the intent. If
The draft does not assure that existing usages are compatible
with each other.
Still, the draft may assure new usages compatible with each other.
However, people who want to have new (sub)types for the new usages
should better simply request new RRTYPEs.
If we need subtypes because 16bit RRTYPE
On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 9:35 AM, John C Klensin john-i...@jck.com wrote:
Hi.
Inspired by part of the SPF discussion but separate from it,
Patrik, Andrew, and I discovered a shortage of registries for
assorted DNS RDATA elements. We have posted a draft to
establish one for TXT RDATA. If
Hi Phillip,
--On August 30, 2013 at 10:16:46 AM -0400 Phillip Hallam-Baker
hal...@gmail.com wrote:
Service discovery requires prefixes.
Here is a draft that works fine (except for the IETF review mistake). Just
put IETF last call on it:
This is helpful feedback.
We are looking at how the listing of the registries is used by the
community.
There have been suggestions of adding keywords to help when people search
for registries.
As the list of registries grows, we want to make sure it is useful and
that registries can easily be
--On Friday, August 30, 2013 11:48 -0400 Phillip Hallam-Baker
hal...@gmail.com wrote:
I believe that draft was superseded by RFC6335 and all
service names (SRV prefix labels) are now recorded at
http://www.iana.org/**
assignments/service-names-**port-numbers/service-names-**
On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 10:38 AM, Cyrus Daboo cy...@daboo.name wrote:
Hi Phillip,
--On August 30, 2013 at 10:16:46 AM -0400 Phillip Hallam-Baker
hal...@gmail.com wrote:
Service discovery requires prefixes.
Here is a draft that works fine (except for the IETF review mistake). Just
put
On 30 aug 2013, at 21:35, John C Klensin john-i...@jck.com wrote:
The more prefixes versus more RRTYPES versus subtypes versus
pushing some of these ideas into a different CLASS versus
whatever else one can think of are also very interesting... and
have nothing to do with whether this
Hi. I'm going to comment very sparsely on responses to this
draft, especially those that slide off into issues that seem
basically irrelevant to the registry and the motivation for its
creation. My primary reason is that I don't want to burden the
IETF list with a back-and-forth exchange,
12 matches
Mail list logo
