Re: [DNSOP] Deprecating the status opcode

Joao Luis Silva Damas <joao@bondis.org> Thu, 16 May 2019 14:48 UTC

Return-Path: <joao@bondis.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 564B7120094 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 May 2019 07:48:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.889
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.889 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] 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 3-qG965KfNxh for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 May 2019 07:48:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp1.bondis.org (smtp1.bondis.org [194.176.119.250]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DA7E512003E for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 16 May 2019 07:48:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.0.85] (37.red-83-51-45.dynamicip.rima-tde.net [83.51.45.37]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: joao) by smtp1.bondis.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9AF296208AC; Thu, 16 May 2019 16:48:04 +0200 (CEST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\))
From: Joao Luis Silva Damas <joao@bondis.org>
In-Reply-To: <7eca1d5a-bf88-b004-e260-be5eaeaffb05@nic.cz>
Date: Thu, 16 May 2019 16:48:04 +0200
Cc: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mao-Original-Outgoing-Id: 579710883.839548-9c0dbe3ec2e52b7b0c223dcabe8e8915
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <19939C36-A5B3-4F68-A11C-87AE19CB2974@bondis.org>
References: <064BA295-F3DD-46E4-86A9-E03CF68EB6BC@sinodun.com> <20190515170020.3F76420141A62A@ary.qy> <CA+nkc8DTfhf7N9Wx0EaRC7kTWJcRMdv2v6P9Z+HH0DzvGbAuhw@mail.gmail.com> <7eca1d5a-bf88-b004-e260-be5eaeaffb05@nic.cz>
To: =?utf-8?B?UGV0ciDFoHBhxI1law==?= <petr.spacek@nic.cz>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.11)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/XjWaUfzStxB4PGE5XZeFU9P6Yo8>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Deprecating the status opcode
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Thu, 16 May 2019 14:48:08 -0000


> On 16 May 2019, at 12:23, Petr Špaček <petr.spacek@nic.cz>; wrote:
> Personally I think it is not worth the effort, it will just add one more
> RFC to read and does not help the protocol maintenance.
> 
> I would say that it is better to have one "cleanup" RFC instead of
> one-off doc with one useful paragraph in it. With one bigger document we
> could say to newcommers "this is list of things you can ignore when you
> encounter them in pile of DNS RFCs”.

Agree. Also “obsolete” in a document often leads to the pursue of whatever obsoleted it and it is not always clear. A cleanup doc, ala “clarifications” would be a better approach

Joao