W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > July to September 2013

Fwd: An IANA Registry for DNS TXT RDATA (I-D Action: draft-klensin-iana-txt-rr-registry-00.txt)

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Sun, 1 Sep 2013 09:50:12 +1000
To: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <25FE8DB1-06D6-41F3-9AA4-243BC5D2CDF2@mnot.net>
FYI, for those not on the main IETF list. This may have bearing on our discussion of using DNS to negotiate…


Begin forwarded message:

> From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
> Subject: An IANA Registry for DNS TXT RDATA (I-D Action: draft-klensin-iana-txt-rr-registry-00.txt)
> Date: 30 August 2013 11:35:50 PM AEST
> To: ietf@ietf.org
> 
> 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 this requires significant
> discussion, we seek guidance from relevant ADs as to where they
> would like that discussion to occur.
> 
> Three notes:
> 
> * As the draft indicates, while RFC 5507 and other documents
> explain why subtypes are usually a bad idea, the registry
> definition tries to be fairly neutral on the subject -- the idea
> is to identify and register what is being done, not to pass
> judgment. 
> 
> * While the use of special labels (in the language of 5507,
> prefixes and suffixes) mitigates many of the issues with
> specialized use of RDATA fields, they do not eliminate the
> desirability of a registry (especially for debugging and
> analysis purposes).
> 
> * While examining the DNS-related registries that exist today,
> we discovered that some other registries seemed to be missing
> and that the organization of the registries seemed to be
> sub-optimal.  We considered attempting a "fix everything" I-D,
> but concluded that the TXT RDATA registry was the most important
> need and that it would be unwise to get its establishment bogged
> down with other issue.  The I-D now contains a temporary
> appendix that outlines the other issues we identified.  IMO,
> thinking through the issues in that appendix, generating the
> relevant I-D(s), and moving them through the system would be a
> good exercise for someone who has little experience in the IETF
> and who is interested in IANA registries and/or DNS details.  I
> am unlikely to find time to do the work myself but would be
> happy to work with a volunteer on pulling things together.
> 
>    best,
>      john
> 
> 
> ---------- Forwarded Message ----------
> Date: Friday, August 30, 2013 05:52 -0700
> From: internet-drafts@ietf.org
> To: i-d-announce@ietf.org
> Subject: I-D Action: draft-klensin-iana-txt-rr-registry-00.txt
> 
> 
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line
> Internet-Drafts directories.
> 
> 
> 	Title           : An IANA Registry for Protocol Uses of Data
> with the DNS TXT RRTYPE 	Author(s)       : John C Klensin
>                          Andrew Sullivan
>                          Patrik Faltstrom
> 	Filename        : draft-klensin-iana-txt-rr-registry-00.txt
> 	Pages           : 8
> 	Date            : 2013-08-30
> 
> Abstract:
>   Some protocols use the RDATA field of the DNS TXT RRTYPE for
> holding    data to be parsed, rather than for unstructured free
> text.  This    document specifies the creation of an IANA
> registry for protocol-    specific structured data to minimize
> the risk of conflicting or    inconsistent uses of that RRTYPE
> and data field.
> 
> 
> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-klensin-iana-txt-rr-registry
> 
> [...]

--
Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Saturday, 31 August 2013 23:50:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:15 UTC