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

Paul Vixie <paul@redbarn.org> Fri, 23 March 2018 18:26 UTC

Return-Path: <paul@redbarn.org>
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 36C7912DA23 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 23 Mar 2018 11:26:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.911
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.911 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham 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 De8zcUTCzxPV for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 23 Mar 2018 11:26:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from family.redbarn.org (family.redbarn.org [IPv6:2001:559:8000:cd::5]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E5506126579 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Fri, 23 Mar 2018 11:26:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [172.19.248.216] (unknown [104.153.224.169]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by family.redbarn.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D68A67594C; Fri, 23 Mar 2018 18:26:26 +0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <5AB546CB.3030408@redbarn.org>
Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2018 11:26:19 -0700
From: Paul Vixie <paul@redbarn.org>
User-Agent: Postbox 5.0.24 (Windows/20180302)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: =?UTF-8?B?T25kxZllaiBTdXLDvQ==?= <ondrej@isc.org>
CC: Bob Harold <rharolde@umich.edu>, dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>
References: <152180695934.17546.2068402636242578841.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <9CEA4F8F-4E71-4508-A088-103DD58F88E1@isc.org> <CA+nkc8DhXEEhiDqwHuA-_zNQc0n=rTZ-VZ6X8-0w-tY_0SC0eA@mail.gmail.com> <40ABB9EB-58EC-48FF-8117-60EE0E7006EF@isc.org> <CA+nkc8BfMKRUHuW+3EzOCeZHfmu1jeOgfVcszTbTYh9k2VTBcA@mail.gmail.com> <002DCABB-24CE-42FA-8DA6-2A458E5F89A1@isc.org> <5AB53F8B.9070504@redbarn.org> <7CF21F70-9419-4D6A-B555-FC229F90E8A9@isc.org>
In-Reply-To: <7CF21F70-9419-4D6A-B555-FC229F90E8A9@isc.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/QghIOeWi4CdZc4EDlNu6-lWvaQk>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-sury-deprecate-obsolete-resource-records-00.txt
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: Fri, 23 Mar 2018 18:26:34 -0000


Ondřej Surý wrote:
> I strongly disagree. The DNS protocol deserve cleanup. Deprecating
> RRTYPEs doesn’t mean the will stop working on the day the RFC is
> published, neither are people going to backport the removal of
> RRTYPEs to existing DNS software releases.
>
> It just means - whatever ancient stuff you are using - you are on
> your own now. It’s same as with the stuff that never got the RFC.

so anyone supporting an older internal network using modern tools has to 
stop upgrading their tooling. that's not constructive for anybody. all 
of us will be less safe if these tools become non-upgradeable.

> Paul, sorry, but the argument “but I know of people running” ancient
> systems can’t be used at every attempt to cleanup the kitchensink
> protocol that DNS is right now.

ondrej, if you're looking for stuff to kill that nobody is using and 
that needlessly fattens the camel, there's a lot of lower hanging fruit.

to say it's complicated, let's simplify it, and oh by the way we need to 
add a CNAME to support the never-workable RFC 5011 plan we adopted in 
ignorance many years back, in the same breath, confuses me.

-- 
P Vixie