Re: [DNSOP] New Version Notification for draft-sury-deprecate-obsolete-resource-records-00.txt

["Paul Hoffman" <[e-mail]>]

On 25 Mar 2018, at 9:05, Evan Hunt wrote:

> I think it would help if there were more clarity on what exactly is 
> being
> proposed, other than adding the words "obsolete" or "deprecated" to a 
> list
> of RRtypes on a website somewhere. The draft didn't seem to have
> particularly clear guidance to implementers.

Fully agree. I would hope that such guidance gets into the draft before 
it moves forwards.
>
> These RR types have text representations and wire format 
> representations,
> which from a complexity standpoint seem quite harmless to implement.

Yes.

> There
> are the old annoying rules about name compression and sorting, which 
> do add
> some complexity, but are already implemented in all the existing 
> codebases.

...and probably needs to be kept for the future to interoperate with the 
current code bases.

> I don't see how the IETF can mandate that they be removed, nor am I 
> sure
> it's particuilarly worth doing.

Right.

> We can make them optional to implement in
> the future, though.

...except that, if some implementer reads this document as meaning that 
they don't have to handle the listed RRtypes in any special way, they 
could get nailed when interoperating with implementations that handle 
the compression correctly.

> Perhaps that's all Ondrej has in mind?

Only he can say. :-)

--Paul Hoffman