thank you for your consideration. I know of substantive changes being worked on for four of the eight independent items collected in RFC 2181. I believe the other four items in RFC 2181 are unlikely to change. the one change i am working on is to obsolete RRsets since they are a primary cause of DNS originated DDoS in the Internet. I guess the path will be to obsolete sections of RFC 2181 piecemeal.
manning bmann...@karoshi.com PO Box 12317 Marina del Rey, CA 90295 310.322.8102 On 10July2015Friday, at 17:47, Suzanne Woolf <suzworldw...@gmail.com> wrote: > Bill, > > > In the interests of keeping things simple: > > Do you have substantive changes to RFC 2181 to propose for WG consideration > at this time? > > If so-- please provide the list with pointers to the relevant internet-drafts. > > If not-- I hope that when you do have substantive changes to suggest, you'll > write them up as internet-drafts so the WG can consider them then. > > For now: we're not inclined to take on the document production process work > you're requesting without more information and review of potential changes to > the existing content of RFC 2181. In addition to the objections already > raised, I find I have serious doubt that we'd be able to get text known to be > inaccurate, such as discussion of DNSSEC already updated by RFC > 4033/4034/4035, copied from an old RFC and pushed through the process as a > new RFC in the hope that it will actually be updated in the future by yet > another RFC. > > As I said earlier-- If the WG wants to do the substantive work, we can manage > the process machinery accordingly. > > > best, > Suzanne > > On Jul 10, 2015, at 1:31 PM, manning <bmann...@karoshi.com> wrote: > >> I am aware of at least three of the independent ideas in RFC 2181 that >> folks are working on: >> >> draft-pfrc-2181--naming-issues-00 >> draft-pfrc-2181-handling-zone-cuts-00 (isn’t this the basis for the dbound >> work?) >> draft-pfrc-2181-resource-record-sets-00 >> draft-pfrc-2181-tc-bit-00 >> >> Ok, so that is four. The rational for eight is so that nothing gets lost >> and we can garbage collect RFC 2181, moving it to historic. >> Then each idea can progress independently, without the linkage to any of the >> other work and without the vestigial anchor to the >> collective past (RFC2181). >> >> First split them apart into their own RFCs >> Second, move RFC 2181 to historic >> Third, start -bising the specify RFCs that folks are working on anyway. >> >> Clean, Tidy, No trailing steams of toilet paper stuck to our shoes. >> >> manning >> bmann...@karoshi.com >> PO Box 12317 >> Marina del Rey, CA 90295 >> 310.322.8102 >> >> >> >> On 10July2015Friday, at 9:06, Suzanne Woolf <suzworldw...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Bill, >>> >>> On Jul 10, 2015, at 9:38 AM, Olafur Gudmundsson <o...@ogud.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Question: >>>> What sections of 2181 do you see the need to update? >>> >>> This seems to be the critical question to your chairs and our AD as well. >>> >>> If I understand it correctly, your proposed document roadmap has us putting >>> eight documents through the process as standards-track RFCs with no change >>> in substance from RFC 2181, so we can then put three more documents through >>> the process with new content. This seems like a very process-heavy way to >>> update 2181. >>> >>> It's also hard to commit to obsoleting 2181 in eight separate steps without >>> seeing the proposed updated content will be, or knowing whether it will get >>> to consensus. >>> >>> Could you describe the substance of what you think needs to be changed? If >>> the WG wants to do the work, we can manage the process machinery >>> accordingly. >>> >>> >>> thanks, >>> Suzanne >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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
