Scoped Interpretation of DNS Resource Records through "Underscored" Naming of Attribute Leaves
draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf-16

Approval announcement
Draft of message to be sent after approval:

From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf@ietf.org, dnsop-chairs@ietf.org, Benno Overeinder <benno@NLnetLabs.nl>, dnsop@ietf.org, Tim Wicinski <tjw.ietf@gmail.com>, benno@NLnetLabs.nl, warren@kumari.net, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Subject: Protocol Action: 'DNS Scoped Data Through "Underscore" Naming of Attribute Leaves' to Best Current Practice (draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf-16.txt)

The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'DNS Scoped Data Through "Underscore" Naming of Attribute Leaves'
  (draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf-16.txt) as Best Current Practice

This document is the product of the Domain Name System Operations Working
Group.

The IESG contact persons are Warren Kumari and Ignas Bagdonas.

A URL of this Internet Draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf/


Technical Summary

   Formally, any DNS resource record may occur under any domain name.
   However some services have defined an operational convention, which
   applies to DNS leaf nodes that are under a DNS branch having one or
   more reserved node names, each beginning with an _underscore.  The
   underscored naming construct defines a semantic scope for DNS record
   types that are associated with the parent domain, above the
   underscored branch.  This specification explores the nature of this
   DNS usage and defines the "DNS Global Underscore Scoped Entry
   Registry" with IANA.  The purpose of the Underscore registry is to
   avoid collisions resulting from the use of the same underscore-based
   name, for different services.

Working Group Summary

   This document has a very long history, with multiple, extended
   periods of hiatus.  It's recent activity received substantial
   working group participant commentary that produced substantial
   changes to the design of the proposed registry.  The latest rounds
   comments were primarily about minor editorial points or
   clarification of implications, rather than changes to the design.
   Multiple participants have commented on the work, over time and
   recently.  They are cited in the document Acknowledgements
   section. 

  WG criticism of the original design approach produced at least two major
   revisions to the design.  

Document Quality

   This work is explicitly designed to require no software or
   operational changes.  Changes are restricted to the
   relevant IETF documents, to use standard registry processes.
  
  The chairs did talk with application area to have good reviews from them.


Personnel

   Benno Overeinder is Document Shepherd.
   Warren Kumari is RAD!