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 6:35, John C Klensin 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 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@xxxxxxxx > To: i-d-announce@xxxxxxxx > 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 > > [...]