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

[Paul Vixie <[e-mail]>]

Martin Hoffmann wrote:
> ...
>
> So, I'll step on that mine: What really would help new implementers
> is a 1034bis.

i sympathize with this view, but here's my worry:

> That having been said, a stronger document set written today would
> not be able to put all of the DNS genies back into their bottles. Too
> many implementations have guessed differently when presented with a
> loose specification, and interoperability today is a moving, organic
> target. When I periodically itch to rewrite the specification from
> scratch, I know there are too many things that must be said that also
> cannot be said. It’s as though, in a discussion of the meaning of
> some bit pattern, a modern description of the protocol—written with
> full perspective on all that has been done in the DNS field—would
> have to say, “It could mean x but some implementations will think it
> means y so you must be cautious.”

(https://queue.acm.org/detail.cfm?id=1242499)

what this means is, it's a difficult task.

-- 
P Vixie