Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-sury-deprecate-obsolete-resource-records-01.txt

Shane Kerr <> Mon, 13 May 2019 08:57 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 873461200F8 for <>; Mon, 13 May 2019 01:57:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id aGpSd8bcTBOk for <>; Mon, 13 May 2019 01:57:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a02:2770::21a:4aff:fea3:eeaa]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B70811200D5 for <>; Mon, 13 May 2019 01:57:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [2001:470:78c8:2:2510:9e14:eb4d:325d] by with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from <>) id 1hQ6m2-0004qz-Ih for; Mon, 13 May 2019 08:57:30 +0000
References: <> <> <> <> <>
From: Shane Kerr <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Mon, 13 May 2019 10:57:30 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.6.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-sury-deprecate-obsolete-resource-records-01.txt
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 13 May 2019 08:57:34 -0000


On 13/05/2019 10.08, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> On May 13, 2019, at 3:00 PM, Evan Hunt <> wrote:
>> On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 07:47:35AM +0000, Paul Hoffman wrote:
>>> A far easier approach is for any developer to feel free to treat these
>>> RRtypes as unknown RRtypes.
>> I'm not sure I understand the distinction you're making here?
>> What you said sounds similar to what the document proposes, so
>> perhaps the document is unclear, or perhaps I've misunderstood you.
> I am proposing that we don't need a document, nor changes to the IANA registry: just treat whatever RRtypes you as a developer feel are no longer used as unknown types and move on.

The problem with this approach is that it requires a developer to go 
through all of these RRtypes and read the specifications and figure out 
what each is, then try to figure out if it is something that is commonly 
in use. Probably that means going through various on-line manuals from 
proprietary implementations, as well as scanning through documentation 
and source of popular open source libraries and servers.

It seems like a lot of time could be saved by being able to look at the 
IANA list and discover that a given RRtype is deprecated.

We have a lot tribal knowledge about how to implement DNS. Reducing that 
amount seems like a good thing.