Re: [DNSOP] Deprecating the status opcode

Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca> Thu, 16 May 2019 14:13 UTC

Return-Path: <paul@nohats.ca>
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 55AC4120098 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 May 2019 07:13:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=nohats.ca
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 XbC6e9OM-7Ic for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 May 2019 07:13:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.nohats.ca (mx.nohats.ca [IPv6:2a03:6000:1004:1::68]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4C9FA120094 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 16 May 2019 07:13:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 454YL04Zq8zDhR; Thu, 16 May 2019 16:13:12 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nohats.ca; s=default; t=1558015992; bh=8eq50zz5/JNjIjf5D1QdDn/klE8XC34ct5p7JbVoEUM=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=YbsVgD6uw6aENlQ1kUA27ysEIG/GNvEfBCer4fmlZTR5BSC09k+to9xO/CXKQNr+V Uam74CB901znczm+sj6RzTbShUbNz3PNg6/hfIxCuK1o62XWGXSj4ozISY3Um6M2Df I6cZtyZPR1muz3kA78NeRWupH+aC7CGJHGHUe8IM=
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mx.nohats.ca
Received: from mx.nohats.ca ([IPv6:::1]) by localhost (mx.nohats.ca [IPv6:::1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HWCBmyfvEobO; Thu, 16 May 2019 16:13:11 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from bofh.nohats.ca (bofh.nohats.ca [76.10.157.69]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Thu, 16 May 2019 16:13:10 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 506BB3547F3; Thu, 16 May 2019 10:13:09 -0400 (EDT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 bofh.nohats.ca 506BB3547F3
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48D9140C964C; Thu, 16 May 2019 10:13:09 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Thu, 16 May 2019 10:13:09 -0400 (EDT)
From: Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca>
To: Mukund Sivaraman <muks@mukund.org>
cc: =?ISO-8859-2?Q?Petr_=A9pa=E8ek?= <petr.spacek@nic.cz>, dnsop@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <20190516122311.GA4159@jurassic.lan.banu.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.LRH.2.21.1905161012250.29509@bofh.nohats.ca>
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> <20190516122311.GA4159@jurassic.lan.banu.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.21 (LRH 202 2017-01-01)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/iSHK9hVRcwB71AtTMqO0CpT9L8Q>
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 14:13:16 -0000

On Thu, 16 May 2019, Mukund Sivaraman wrote:

> On Thu, May 16, 2019 at 12:23:12PM +0200, Petr Špaček wrote:
>> 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".
>
> +1 (matches up with "clarifications" style RFCs that bundle things
> together).

That should be obvious from the IANA registry. If it is not, then we
should write something that instructs IANA to improve the registry.

Paul