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.”
Ondřej -- Ondřej Surý — ISC > On 23 Mar 2018, at 16:51, Bob Harold <rharo...@umich.edu> wrote: > > >> On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 12:05 PM, Ondřej Surý <ond...@isc.org> wrote: >> No, I don’t mean that. While in theory you can call an aquarium with dead >> fish and algae “in use” and tell your neighbors that you have fish and have >> a green thumb, it wouldn’t be necessarily an accurate assessment of the >> situation. Similarly, an occasional user that tries things doesn’t make >> those experimental RRTYPEs to be “in use”. >> >> What I mean is to make DNS simpler by kicking out stuff that has no use in >> existing protocols. >> >> Ondřej >> -- >> Ondřej Surý — ISC > > Ok, sorry to sound mean. But I think 'not in use' needs to be defined in the > rfc so we all understand it the same. How do we decide when something in no > longer in use? Perhaps there is no quantitative measurement and we just have > to make a judgement call. > > "no known practical usage" ? > "no known use that will break anything if removed" ? > "use is so low that the the advantage of removing exceeds the advantage of > continuing to support it" ? > "there is very little use and we don't think removing it will cause a > problem" ? > > -- > Bob Harold > > >>> On 23 Mar 2018, at 14:18, Bob Harold <rharo...@umich.edu> wrote: >>> >>> >>>> On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 8:11 AM, Ondřej Surý <ond...@isc.org> wrote: >>>> Heya, >>>> >>>> this is a first attempt to start reducing the load on DNS Implementors and >>>> actually remove the stuff from DNS that’s not used and not needed anymore. >>>> >>>> There’s github for the draft: >>>> https://github.com/oerdnj/draft-sury-dnsop-deprecate-obsolete-resource-records >>>> >>>> Ondrej >>>> -- >>>> Ondřej Surý >>>> ond...@isc.org >>>> >>>>> Begin forwarded message: >>>>> >>>>> From: internet-dra...@ietf.org >>>>> Subject: New Version Notification for >>>>> draft-sury-deprecate-obsolete-resource-records-00.txt >>>>> Date: 23 March 2018 at 12:09:19 GMT >>>>> To: "Ondrej Sury" <ond...@isc.org> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> A new version of I-D, >>>>> draft-sury-deprecate-obsolete-resource-records-00.txt >>>>> has been successfully submitted by Ondrej Sury and posted to the >>>>> IETF repository. >>>>> >>>>> Name: draft-sury-deprecate-obsolete-resource-records >>>>> Revision: 00 >>>>> Title: Deprecating obsolete DNS Resource Records >>>>> Document date: 2018-03-22 >>>>> Group: Individual Submission >>>>> Pages: 4 >>>>> URL: >>>>> https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-sury-deprecate-obsolete-resource-records-00.txt >>>>> Status: >>>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-sury-deprecate-obsolete-resource-records/ >>>>> Htmlized: >>>>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-sury-deprecate-obsolete-resource-records-00 >>>>> Htmlized: >>>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-sury-deprecate-obsolete-resource-records >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Abstract: >>>>> This document deprecates Resource Records that are neither being used >>>>> for anything meanigful nor already made obsolete by other RFCs. This >>>>> document updates [RFC1035]. >>> >>> I don't mind deprecating unused types. But I don't understand how an >>> unused type can affect compression. I can only imagine it having an effect >>> if the type actually exists in a packet, which means that it is 'in use'. >>> >>> Do you mean 'types that have DNS records, and hosts query for those >>> records, but we think they are not really used' ? >>> >>> -- >>> Bob Harold >
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
