Subject: [DNSOP] Spencer Dawkins' Discuss on draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf-fix-04: (with DISCUSS)

From: Spencer Dawkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2018 14:33:45 -0700

Spencer Dawkins has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf-fix-04: Discuss

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf-fix/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

This is absolutely a "plea for clue Discuss", after which I will immediately
clear because the right thing will happen.

There are three text blocks that follow this form:

   If a public specification that defines use of a "TXT" calls for the
   use of an underscore-prefixed domain name, the global underscored
   name -- the one closest to the root -- MUST be entered into this
   registry, if it is not already registered.

->Here is a template of suggested text for this to appear in the IANA
->Considerations section of the specification:

      "Per" [Attrleaf] "please add the following entry to the DNS
      Underscore Global Scoped Entry Registry:"

Do you have a really strong sense that this shouldn't be

   If a public specification that defines use of a "TXT" calls for the
   use of an underscore-prefixed domain name, the global underscored
   name -- the one closest to the root -- MUST be entered into this
   registry, if it is not already registered, by adding this text to
   the IANA Considerations section of the specification:

      "Per" [Attrleaf] "please add the following entry to the DNS
      Underscore Global Scoped Entry Registry:"

I may be overreacting to "MUST do something like this", which is roughly what
I'm reading into "template of suggested text", and if I am, I'm almost sure
someone will tell me that ... but I'm not seeing an obvious reason to REQUIRE
one of an unbounded set of flowers to bloom ;-)

---

From: Warren Kumari <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2018 14:01:10 +0200

> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf-fix/

Hi,

I just arrived in Amsterdam, and am somewhat bleary, but I'm not sure I
understand your question / point -- is it simply normalizing the IANA
language?
W

>
> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
>

-- 
I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad idea in
the first place.
This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing
regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair of
pants.
   ---maf

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2018 08:18:29 -0400

> understand your question / point -- is it simply normalizing the IANA 

Offlist he explained to me that the main concern was a normative 
requirement, without the specification detail to be sure to satisfy it.

The issue was rendered moot by the removal of the normative language 
from that draft.

d/

-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net

---

From: Warren Kumari <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2018 15:12:10 +0200

> The issue was rendered moot by the removal of the normative language

Ah, thank you.

I’d like to apologize for being distracted / not as involved in the
balloting as I usually am; my travels and the upcoming KSK Roll have both
been taking lots of my focus.

W