IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] Current DNS standards, drafts & charter

Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca> Tue, 27 March 2018 11:51 UTC

Return-Path: <paul@nohats.ca>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 87409127275 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Mar 2018 04:51:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.01
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.01 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=nohats.ca
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id iHnaXTfxbHOP for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Mar 2018 04:51:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.nohats.ca (mx.nohats.ca [193.110.157.68]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DE3A81270AB for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Mar 2018 04:51:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 409Tqx6DfPz3Ch for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Mar 2018 13:51:25 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nohats.ca; s=default; t=1522151485; bh=fMdQwVVOQmpM4FKyuP9qmjVUw1PWApx3/dOKA/5cJ7U=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=uhFdS0NNQ5iXFIJ4m78XmhqyHwMe8DWKuvhF4K15z9Sj8Xy+FuEiVG8mPtYHQfAJA 0GjIh5tblA2qNBbJg8NfzUT65Q7+wV/ajXrTHT9okUFRa6T9G74tuwBod+9Nvp9vGf 2gXRCWvEp2ZFpensrq5wcaq3//Pbfs7CcSKuf4kk=
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mx.nohats.ca
Received: from mx.nohats.ca ([IPv6:::1]) by localhost (mx.nohats.ca [IPv6:::1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zVUZ3Z21kjRw for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Mar 2018 13:51:24 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from bofh.nohats.ca (bofh.nohats.ca [76.10.157.69]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Mar 2018 13:51:24 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 9A4EAC9A; Tue, 27 Mar 2018 07:51:23 -0400 (EDT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 bofh.nohats.ca 9A4EAC9A
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 918134023309 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Mar 2018 07:51:23 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2018 07:51:23 -0400
From: Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca>
To: dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <5852643C-B414-4C3E-A1B9-553054D3DD46@isc.org>
Message-ID: <alpine.LRH.2.21.1803270750470.32312@bofh.nohats.ca>
References: <20180326154645.GB24771@server.ds9a.nl> <CA3D81B6-164F-4607-A7E6-B999B90C4DA8@gmail.com> <5852643C-B414-4C3E-A1B9-553054D3DD46@isc.org>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.21 (LRH 202 2017-01-01)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/F-mg2Mf2R7ubNUn-Tz4fYZrO0zs>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Current DNS standards, drafts & charter
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <dnsop.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dnsop/>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsop@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2018 11:51:31 -0000

On Tue, 27 Mar 2018, Ondřej Surý wrote:

> I strongly believe that any work on cleaning up DNS protocol and/or rewriting RFC1034/RFC1035 and associated document would need a new WG with tightly defined charter.
>
> Hence, I will not request or I won’t support adopting my deprecating-obsolete-rr-types as a WG document - it might become one of the first documents for new WG, or it might end up as individual submission. While this work might be considered as “protocol maintenance”, I think it is bigger then simple protocol maintenance.

I agree. If this is a task worth doing, do it in a new WG.

Paul

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email