Subject: Re: [DNSOP] namespaces, I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf-06.txt

From: "John Levine" <[email-masked]>
Date: 1 Apr 2018 11:10:35 -0400

In article <[email-masked]> you write:
>> While I think I see a computer science basis for saying that an RR type
>> has a namespace, I'm continuing to find the point more confusing than
>> helpful, and fear that other readers will, too.
>>
>> At the least, can you point me to official documents that explain that
>> view? I've looked around a bit an haven't found such a specification or
>> discussion.
>
>it only contains a namespace for the purposes of your underscore 
>registry. no use of _TCP by any other RR type will conflict with the use 
>of _TCP by SRV, for example. thus, each RR type effectively has its own 
>registry, whose names need only be unique within that registry. you may 
>prefer to call it a dictionary rather than a namespace in order to avoid 
>confusion around what other DNS RFC's call a "namespace".

It depends which end of the telescope you're looking through.

For a DNS client, you're right. A _name on FOO and BAR records is
unrelated give or take niggles about NXDOMAIN vs. NODATA and what ANY
means that we can ignore.

For a DNS server, all the records at a given name are in the same
zone, so if we invented two uses of _name that would not be managed
together, we'd create an eternity of misery for zone maintainers.
The way that TLSA reuses _transport names for port numbers rather than
services skates close to that line.

The current plan to do one registry that includes both _name and
rrname is right, but I'm not sure if it'd be useful to add some
naming advice along the lines of the above.

R's,
John