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

On 31 March 2018 at 17:34, bert hubert wrote: > First, I agree it is necessary. I don't think anyone would really disagree. > The issue is the stupendous amount of work it would be and if we are going > to do it. > > A secondary question is how hard we are going to make

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

On 31 March 2018 at 22:02, Paul Vixie wrote: > > furthermore, the IETF would have to update some STD document every time a > new DNS-related RFC was published, just to enumerate the full set of things > a new implementer should study and consider. that STD could be just a list

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

Matthew Pounsett wrote: there's a carrier wave in that time series, which has its own wave form. at the end of each epoch, we'll be back where we are today, without a coherent or complete document set. we'd be moving from failing to plan, to planning to fail. let's make a

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

On 03/31/2018 07:34 PM, Mukund Sivaraman wrote: > All the clarifications RFCs such as NCACHE 2308, 2181, wildcards 4592, > etc. I'd also expect TSIG, AXFR, IXFR and UPDATE to get treatment in > "core" DNS in the same grouping as master files. > Just offhand, IPv6 stuff should be merged and

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

On Sat, Mar 31, 2018 at 11:34:29PM +0200, bert hubert wrote: > On Sun, Apr 01, 2018 at 02:39:06AM +0530, Mukund Sivaraman wrote: > > Just a "guide to the RFCs" won't be sufficient. Language has to be > > corrected; large parts of RFC 1034 and 1035 have to be rewritten and > > restructured,

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

On Sun, Apr 01, 2018 at 02:39:06AM +0530, Mukund Sivaraman wrote: > Just a "guide to the RFCs" won't be sufficient. Language has to be > corrected; large parts of RFC 1034 and 1035 have to be rewritten and > restructured, incorporating clarifications from newer RFCs. It would be > a big work, but

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

Matthew Pounsett wrote: On 28 March 2018 at 14:48, Paul Vixie > wrote: matt, the rfc document set is innately time-series. this was seen as a strength compared to some "document set in the sky" that would be updated periodically with

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

On 28 March 2018 at 14:48, Paul Vixie wrote: > matt, the rfc document set is innately time-series. this was seen as a > strength compared to some "document set in the sky" that would be updated > periodically with lineouts and additions, like for example legal codes or > the

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

On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 04:38:24AM -0400, Tim Wicinski wrote: > > I have looked at the same problem Bert has, but he did present it much > better than I could.  When I started thinking about this, I approached it > from the point of view of "If I have to give a co-worker a document on how > to

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

matt, the rfc document set is innately time-series. this was seen as a strength compared to some "document set in the sky" that would be updated periodically with lineouts and additions, like for example legal codes or the ARIN PPML. i think you're very close to saying we need the latter in

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

tjw ietf wrote: I should qualify my comments on Route 53 - I don't think they are something we should emulate, more of an example of how 3rd party vendors get away with an overly-minimal set of resource records. The words I have to describe them are generally not polite. i remember being

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

On 27 March 2018 at 20:17, Paul Vixie wrote: > I think we're discussing the same idea from different perspectives. >> > > i think so, yes. > > I think writing a new document that references other documents to say >> "here's the sections in each of these you need to implement"

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

I should qualify my comments on Route 53 - I don't think they are something we should emulate, more of an example of how 3rd party vendors get away with an overly-minimal set of resource records. The words I have to describe them are generally not polite. Tim On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 4:38 AM,

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

I have looked at the same problem Bert has, but he did present it much better than I could.  When I started thinking about this, I approached it from the point of view of "If I have to give a co-worker a document on how to build a DNS Server (Authoritative or Resolver), what would I need to

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

Matthew Pounsett wrote: On 27 March 2018 at 17:33, Paul Vixie > wrote: i see no purpose in change documents, which would add to the set of things a new implementer would have to know to read, and then to read. I think we're discussing the

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

On 27 March 2018 at 17:33, Paul Vixie wrote: > i see no purpose in change documents, which would add to the set of things > a new implementer would have to know to read, and then to read. I think we're discussing the same idea from different perspectives. I think writing a

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

i see no purpose in change documents, which would add to the set of things a new implementer would have to know to read, and then to read. rather, we should focus on a DNSOP document set that specifies a minimum subset of DNS which is considered by the operational community to be mandatory to

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

On 27 Mar 2018, at 9:02, Andrew Sullivan wrote: On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 05:46:45PM +0200, bert hubert wrote: So my first suggested action is: could we write a document that has a core introduction of DNS and then provides a recommended (not) reading list. Maybe we could, but we failed at

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

Definitely. I didn’t mean to rewrite 1:1, but take existing content and do m:n including splitting and combining existing RFCs into new document(s). Ondřej -- Ondřej Surý — ISC > On 27 Mar 2018, at 18:19, Matthew Pounsett wrote: > > > >> On 27 March 2018 at 03:49,

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

On 27 March 2018 at 03:49, Ondřej Surý wrote: > > Again, from experience from dnsext, I would strongly suggest that any work > in this area is split into CHANGE documents and REWRITE documents, with > strict scope. Documents rewriting existing RFCs while adding more stuff at >

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

Hi, On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 05:46:45PM +0200, bert hubert wrote: > So my first suggested action is: could we write a document that has a core > introduction of DNS and then provides a recommended (not) reading list. Maybe we could, but we failed at that once before. After the DNSSEC work wound

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

Paul Wouters wrote: On Mon, 26 Mar 2018, Paul Vixie wrote: what i'd like is something more. KEY, SIG and NXT had multiple interoperable implementations, but were not actually functional in any end-to-end way, and were thus replaced by RRSIG, DNSKEY, DS, and NSEC. later we moved the target

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

On Mon, 26 Mar 2018, Paul Vixie wrote: what i'd like is something more. KEY, SIG and NXT had multiple interoperable implementations, but were not actually functional in any end-to-end way, and were thus replaced by RRSIG, DNSKEY, DS, and NSEC. later we moved the target and added NSEC3 and

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

On Tue, 27 Mar 2018, Ondřej Surý wrote: I strongly believe that any work on cleaning up DNS protocol and/or rewriting RFC1034/RFC1035 and associated document would need a new WG with tightly defined charter. Hence, I will not request or I won’t support adopting my

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

Hi Suzanne, > If the WG feels that the previous view of how DNSOP should work has been > overtaken by events, we can certainly work with our Area Director (hi > Warren!) on a revised charter. I strongly believe that any work on cleaning up DNS protocol and/or rewriting RFC1034/RFC1035 and

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

On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 2:26 AM, Suzanne Woolf wrote: > The current DNSOP charter was deliberately written > to be flexible in what we could work on. Normally an > IETF WG is chartered to perform a fairly tightly > constrained piece of work and then either re-charter > to

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

Hi all, First, thanks for running with this. Top-posting a couple of process observations: First, the chairs are always open to discussion of what documents belong in the WG, interpretation/revision of our charter, etc. There’s a certain amount of process to be observed, especially if we want

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

So, a couple of thoughts as a newcomer to the list, and someone who's wading through the virtual forest that is the DNS RFC specifications. Breaking into the DNS world is to put it ... difficult. I thought myself relatively knowledgeable on the subject up until about two weeks ago when I

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

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

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

On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 09:13:31AM -0700, Paul Vixie wrote: > > Finally, with Job Snijders, I am very much in favour of mandating > > interoperable implementations as a requirement for standards action. > > There is a whole bunch of reasons for this. For starters, how can we > > know if an idea

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

bert hubert wrote: > > I've been looking at the amount of DNS out there, and I think we can > do several things with them. I've also concluded that the mediocrity > of DNS implementations outside of the well-known ones can not be > fully blamed on "stupid programmers". The fact that we've offered

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

bert hubert wrote: ... So my first suggested action is: could we write a document that has a core introduction of DNS and then provides a recommended (not) reading list. Secondly, what we've been doing already, is grouping the various standards in categories. Read this if you are doing X.

[DNSOP] Current DNS standards, drafts & charter

Hi everyone, I've been looking at the amount of DNS out there, and I think we can do several things with them. I've also concluded that the mediocrity of DNS implementations outside of the well-known ones can not be fully blamed on "stupid programmers". The fact that we've offered the world