Re: [DNSOP] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-sury-deprecate-obsolete-resource-records-00.txt

Paul Vixie <> Fri, 23 March 2018 17:55 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8404C12DA14 for <>; Fri, 23 Mar 2018 10:55:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.911
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.911 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id iN3UZIAzEJXO for <>; Fri, 23 Mar 2018 10:55:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:559:8000:cd::5]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3188512DA12 for <>; Fri, 23 Mar 2018 10:55:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] (unknown []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 734B77594C; Fri, 23 Mar 2018 17:55:36 +0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2018 10:55:23 -0700
From: Paul Vixie <>
User-Agent: Postbox 5.0.24 (Windows/20180302)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: =?UTF-8?B?T25kxZllaiBTdXLDvQ==?= <>
CC: Bob Harold <>, dnsop <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-sury-deprecate-obsolete-resource-records-00.txt
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2018 17:55:49 -0000

Ondřej Surý wrote:
> Thanks, now I understand what you are asking for;), so what about:
> “No existing Internet Standard uses these Resource Records and there no
> know practical usage in the public Internet.”

i think this is overbroad. if we aren't also sure that it's not being 
used in some private network somewhere, we should not tell implementers 
to remove support. a lot of private networks use internet protocols and 
implementations to support their local apps and users.

mf, mg, mb, and mail1 are i think still in use on some as/400 intranets.

when i removed UID and GID from BIND it was because there was no RFC, 
not because i wasn't fully aware of some older athena implementations 
still in use at that time which used these instead of TXT.

ideally we'd put out an extended call for comments about anything we'd 
like to remove if it ever worked to anyone's knowledge. if it never 
worked, like extended label types in EDNS, they can just be removed.

this is how we handled IQUERY deprecation and i think it went well.

P Vixie