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

[Tim Wicinski <[e-mail]>]

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 <[e-mail]
>> <mailto:[e-mail]>> 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
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
>