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

I should qualify my comments on Route 53 - I don't think they are something
we should emulate, more of an example of how 3rd party vendors get away
with an overly-minimal set of resource records.   The words I have to
describe them are generally not polite.

Tim

On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 4:38 AM, Tim Wicinski <tjw.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> I have looked at the same problem Bert has, but he did present it much
> better than I could.  When I started thinking about this, I approached it
> from the point of view of "If I have to give a co-worker a document on how
> to build a DNS Server (Authoritative or Resolver), what would I need to
> give them".   I also have spent a lot of time watching the 793bis work in
> TCPM, which has been moving along slowly and methodically.  I felt what we
> would come up with would be
>     1. a DNSOP document which would be an implementation list for building
> an Authoritative or Resolver
>     2. a roadmap to work on 1034bis and 1035bis, which would be a new WG.
>
> I also realized that the second item would be brutal, painstaking, not
> "sexy" for most IETF standard types.
>
> I've had lots of experience dealing with the concept of "technical debt"
> and a lot of this is very similar.  But we also need someone who has the
> skill set of a project manager, who knows how to lay out workflows.  That's
> not something a bunch of programmers always have.
>
> Summary - Paul is on the right track here.    A good example is looking at
> what Route 53 implements (for better or for worse) and realize they
> implement some real minimal subset.   I think it's too small, but it's an
> interesting argument.
>
> tim
>
>
>
>
> On 3/27/18 17:33, Paul Vixie wrote:
>
>> i see no purpose in change documents, which would add to the set of
>> things a new implementer would have to know to read, and then to read.
>>
>> rather, we should focus on a DNSOP document set that specifies a minimum
>> subset of DNS which is considered by the operational community to be
>> mandatory to implement. any implementer can remove anything else and still
>> be checklist-compatible when customers are baking things off.
>>
>> if someone wants to implement iquery or WKS let that be crazy rather than
>> broken -- on-the-wire patterns still described, code points still reserved,
>> but unlikely to find anybody to actually interoperate with.
>>
>> vixie
>>
>> re:
>>
>> Matthew Pounsett wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 27 March 2018 at 03:49, Ondřej Surý <ondrej@isc.org
>>> <mailto:ondrej@isc.org>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>     Again, from experience from dnsext, I would strongly suggest that
>>>     any work in this area is split into CHANGE documents and REWRITE
>>>     documents, with strict scope. Documents rewriting existing RFCs
>>>     while adding more stuff at the same time tend to not reach the
>>>     finish line.
>>>
>>> Does this include combining documents?  For example, it would probably
>>> make sense to combine some of the clarifications documents into any
>>> rewrite of 1034/1035.
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> DNSOP mailing list
>>> DNSOP@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
>>>
>>
>>
>