Re: [DNSOP] Deprecating the status opcode

Shane Kerr <shane@time-travellers.org> Thu, 16 May 2019 12:10 UTC

Return-Path: <shane@time-travellers.org>
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 7E5CE1201CC for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 May 2019 05:10:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham 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 XNLEnXWrancP for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 May 2019 05:10:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from time-travellers.org (c.time-travellers.nl.eu.org [IPv6:2a02:2770::21a:4aff:fea3:eeaa]) (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 62E9512009C for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 16 May 2019 05:10:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [2001:470:78c8:2:98cf:edef:baef:be03] by time-travellers.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from <shane@time-travellers.org>) id 1hRFDH-0007W8-7y for dnsop@ietf.org; Thu, 16 May 2019 12:10:19 +0000
To: dnsop@ietf.org
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>
From: Shane Kerr <shane@time-travellers.org>
Message-ID: <c0a37f59-ebe8-b780-3432-a6990f5f64d6@time-travellers.org>
Date: Thu, 16 May 2019 14:10:18 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.6.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <7eca1d5a-bf88-b004-e260-be5eaeaffb05@nic.cz>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/xCyjx6FslvYtoUvG4kMVv9EIfRk>
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 12:10:24 -0000

Petr,

On 16/05/2019 12.23, Petr Špaček wrote:
> 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 disagree.

A new DNS developer may see "obsolete" on the IANA table and happily 
ignore this, rather than scratching her head trying to figure out if it 
is defined somewhere eventually, and searching through every RFC 
published after 1035 to try to figure it out.

> 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".

The problem with this is that even something that should be as 
non-controversial as deprecating MAILA/MAILB generated huge debate and 
concern. I have doubts that any larger cleanup RFC will ever succeed.

Maybe we can convert *this* document into the One True Cleanup RFC. If 
we can actually come up with any other cleanup that doesn't result in 
wailing and gnashing of teeth, then we can add that in later?

Cheers,

--
Shane