Re: [DNSOP] Deprecating the status opcode

Dick Franks <rwfranks@acm.org> Sun, 19 May 2019 20:58 UTC

Return-Path: <rwfranks@gmail.com>
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 66D2012004F for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 19 May 2019 13:58:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.65
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.65 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.249, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
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 f9MuDxVbK6nD for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 19 May 2019 13:58:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-io1-f54.google.com (mail-io1-f54.google.com [209.85.166.54]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C2D3E12003E for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Sun, 19 May 2019 13:58:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-io1-f54.google.com with SMTP id s20so9462785ioj.7 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Sun, 19 May 2019 13:58:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=jWCfDO/mLkisGSAJtDIYYV1bmPNKkbCqA+UwzXxnGQs=; b=UrI89u5+GXFkUlg6+G+7NU+vfC9Yk5fj+14+1sfgPNJKUewr0N1ZzT9Q3NCyF7wUqJ qFvYzvur1C+RKo6TzEZIAM6HhHcZKnKT92Hs0IpoS8h0NZeI5bxNZOrmui2UmKXenvN+ zE3obxzosh6sUeHj01QW/TsqWX1yys2ngnspZvL26Thka8SDEyDHsFtTwL0SUgyJW0Sh 3lrpB3u45VP+M9WxPbsvIhBauqztkysLyUkPjWY3DifUw6yLOBF70LdaXYb8cWIownGw aNjyphTIYzmHTItbcCiZckgcoZzew2tGKEG35B/aWh44LDiRMSQ2LZst9rO83AnrqA3N CF1w==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWb3Jmry3DTsNsLe6tH/u5TDJaRZ9R6v5xOqj1wN4ZtrXmEcgmw bFSHZSojkgFQeEC5S3dQbjBE6iFMEYeuM8D25Rs=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqyXNysq+K0a5arGHfkkDGWXVGRQmCyLgAZOjFpGVaHcax+Tl4jvI4iqGPEtoRc4/tuTxq1VNrpZWRJ+F+TUfg8=
X-Received: by 2002:a6b:1494:: with SMTP id 142mr24136121iou.199.1558299522676; Sun, 19 May 2019 13:58:42 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
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> <2f2f35be-963f-e217-950c-a11130489c5e@godaddy.com> <0098DB80-BB38-4F84-9F28-BC9EB1F96FDB@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <0098DB80-BB38-4F84-9F28-BC9EB1F96FDB@gmail.com>
From: Dick Franks <rwfranks@acm.org>
Date: Sun, 19 May 2019 21:58:06 +0100
Message-ID: <CAKW6Ri7zM22i0Wkr=vkr=HXCnBxRK4jBse5AEW4jNn3FtPJZsg@mail.gmail.com>
To: tjw ietf <tjw.ietf@gmail.com>
Cc: "Michael J. Sheldon" <msheldon@godaddy.com>, "dnsop@ietf.org" <dnsop@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/wOe-mpea-yi_fMrHLvplBZtQpzM>
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: Sun, 19 May 2019 20:58:46 -0000

IMHO, not worth the effort

Dick Franks
________________________


On Sun, 19 May 2019 at 18:31, tjw ietf <tjw.ietf@gmail.com>; wrote:
>
> Can we like this draft *and* a RFC cleanup of 1034/1035?
>
> Though watching tcpm do this for 793 has been disheartening
>
> From my high tech gadget
>
> > On May 16, 2019, at 11:46, Michael J. Sheldon <msheldon@godaddy.com>; wrote:
> >
> >> On 5/16/19 3:23 AM, Petr Špaček wrote:
> >> Notice: This email is from an external sender.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> On 15. 05. 19 19:57, Bob Harold wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 1:00 PM John Levine <johnl@taugh.com
> >>> <mailto:johnl@taugh.com>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>    In article <064BA295-F3DD-46E4-86A9-E03CF68EB6BC@sinodun.com
> >>>    <mailto:064BA295-F3DD-46E4-86A9-E03CF68EB6BC@sinodun.com>> you write:
> >>>> -=-=-=-=-=-
> >>>>
> >>>> Hi,
> >>>>
> >>>> In the spirit of deprecating things I have submitted a draft to
> >>>    deprecate the status opcode.
> >>>
> >>>    RFC 1034 says it's "To be defined" so this seems a little premature.
> >>>
> >>>    Other than that, go for it.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Does this increase or decrease the 'camel' page count?
> >>
> >> Personally I think it is not worth the effort, it will just add one more
> >> RFC to read and does not help the protocol maintenance.
> >>
> >> 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".
> >>
> >
> > In a perfect world, we'd have occasional complete rewrites like what
> > happened with RFCs 821, 2821, 5321 and RFCs 822, 2822, 5322
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Michael Sheldon
> > Dev-DNS Services
> > GoDaddy.com
> > _______________________________________________
> > DNSOP mailing list
> > DNSOP@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
>
> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list
> DNSOP@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop