Re: [DNSOP] raising the bar: requiring implementations

[Matthijs Mekking <[e-mail]>]

I can agree with the argument that if implemented in a major open-source 
DNS implementation it would weigh in more to the discussion, but 
limiting to is far too restricting in my opinion.

Best regards,
   Matthijs


On 03/28/2018 09:48 PM, Mukund Sivaraman wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 05:29:18PM +0200, Matthijs Mekking wrote:
>> As mentioned in the meeting, I am in favor of requiring implementations
>> before drafts become standards.
>>
>> However, I would be opposed to limit acceptable implementations to the few
>> major open source DNS implementations (define major). It should be
>> acceptable for other organizations or just persons to contribute a reference
>> implementation.
> 
> It depends on the topic of the draft of course, esp. where in operations
> it applies. If it is nameserver territory, I absolutely want to see an
> implementation in *any* of the major DNS implementations. By major, I
> mean the popular ones (e.g., PowerDNS, NSD, Unbound, Knot, etc.) This is
> because:
> 
> * A full-fledged nameserver is somewhat different from a toy
>    implementation in performance and scalability (this point is from
>    experience with a bad implementation of a draft)
> 
> * The rest of us want to see proof that it can be implemented (not just
>    a promise or mention of implementation) and play with it and observe
>    operational characteristics _freely_, and determine whether a draft
>    will really improve things in the way it says it will. E.g., take all
>    the multiple-answer drafts that are making the rounds.. in Singapore
>    there was a presentation of a grand matrix of them, but who knows how
>    they actually perform?
> 
> It's 2018. We aren't living in the dark ages with a single DNS
> implementation.
> 
> If a draft is for nameserver software to implement, and if the authors
> cannot implement it by themselves, they can persuade one of the open
> source vendors to do so. If they are unable to persuade any, that should
> be enough consensus about how significant that draft is. Speaking for
> myself, we in our DNS implementation add support for several drafts
> early in the draft stage because they look necessary or interesting, or
> because we want to know how they behave early on.
> 
> 		Mukund
> 
> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
>