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

bert hubert <bert.hubert@powerdns.com> Sat, 31 March 2018 21:34 UTC

Return-Path: <bert@hubertnet.nl>
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 B11741241F3 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 31 Mar 2018 14:34:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.652
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.652 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
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 gRhgl6ffjtsm for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 31 Mar 2018 14:34:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from xs.powerdns.com (xs.powerdns.com [82.94.213.34]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 50DF3120725 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Sat, 31 Mar 2018 14:34:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from server.ds9a.nl (unknown [86.82.68.237]) by xs.powerdns.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 329879FB8C; Sat, 31 Mar 2018 21:34:31 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by server.ds9a.nl (Postfix, from userid 1000) id CAD53AC542A; Sat, 31 Mar 2018 23:34:29 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2018 23:34:29 +0200
From: bert hubert <bert.hubert@powerdns.com>
To: Mukund Sivaraman <muks@isc.org>
Cc: Tim Wicinski <tjw.ietf@gmail.com>, Matthew Pounsett <matt@conundrum.com>, Ondřej Surý <ondrej@isc.org>, Suzanne Woolf <suzworldwide@gmail.com>, Paul Vixie <paul@redbarn.org>, dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <20180331213429.GB31712@server.ds9a.nl>
References: <20180326154645.GB24771@server.ds9a.nl> <CA3D81B6-164F-4607-A7E6-B999B90C4DA8@gmail.com> <5852643C-B414-4C3E-A1B9-553054D3DD46@isc.org> <CAAiTEH8aA3J1j4iUQDisDHiUJXopykKkssuhOK=v+iVV_XZWyA@mail.gmail.com> <5ABAB891.3010306@redbarn.org> <937cde61-3e8e-ea65-b2fd-ed4030f2e311@gmail.com> <20180331210906.GA11628@jurassic>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20180331210906.GA11628@jurassic>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/MVd8mi42FQg2TMt7uoas-c7vQaI>
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: Sat, 31 Mar 2018 21:34:38 -0000

On Sun, Apr 01, 2018 at 02:39:06AM +0530, Mukund Sivaraman wrote:
> Just a "guide to the RFCs" won't be sufficient. Language has to be
> corrected; large parts of RFC 1034 and 1035 have to be rewritten and
> restructured, incorporating clarifications from newer RFCs. It would be
> a big work, but IMHO, it is necessary.

First, I agree it is necessary. I don't think anyone would really disagree.
The issue is the stupendous amount of work it would be and if we are going
to do it. 

A secondary question is how hard we are going to make this on ourselves if
we do it. This comprises a number of things: 1) which RFCs would be obsoleted
by the rewrite (2181?)and which ones are we going to leave in place (403x?)

2) What 'optional' things are we going to move into scope of DNS basics. In
other words, what will 1034/1035-bis say about DNSSEC?

Tbh I highly doubt if we'll have the determination to do 1034-bis given that
even the profile efforts did not succeed so far.

I will in any case continue to plod away on the 'hello-dns' introduction.

I'm not sure what to make of this but over 25000 unique IP addresses visited
the site (for around 40000 page views) after it was listed on 'Hacker News'.
Perhaps there is some pent-up demand?

	Bert