Scoped Interpretation of DNS Resource Records through "Underscored" Naming of Attribute Leaves
Draft of message to be sent after approval:
From: The IESG <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: IETF-Announce <email@example.com> Cc: The IESG <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, Benno Overeinder <benno@NLnetLabs.nl>, email@example.com, Tim Wicinski <firstname.lastname@example.org>, benno@NLnetLabs.nl, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.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!