On Sat, Mar 24, 2018 at 02:04:02PM -0400, Matthew Pounsett wrote: > I went to go dig into this and in the process of producing a list I found > that the list was longer than I imagined, and that there are more > categories of documents that don't contribute to the camel than I thought.
Hi Matthew, I have indeed found the same thing. I've trawled the RFC index for anything with "DNS" or "Domain Name System" in the title, and this found even more documents that do not change the DNS itself, but do specify how to use it. These documents may be worthy, but an implementer need not specifically adhere to thse RFCs. There are 267 RFCs and active drafts that are "about" DNS right now. I have begun to sort these into sections, tentatively: Core: everyone needs to read this DNSSEC: Could be skipped if you do not care about DNSSEC rrtype: Define rrtypes that do not change semantics dns-meta: Documents contemplating DNS dns-use: Documents describing how to use DNS to do certain things Probably more sections are possible. Some documents could be in multiple sections. The file that contains my very limited work on assigning sections is: https://github.com/ahupowerdns/protocol-camel/blob/master/dns-rfcs.js I'd love for people to send pull requests improving the file. Note that RFCs themselves are already grouped into 'Informational', 'Best current practice' or even 'Experimental'. Almost everything that is an operational guideline is already in 'Informational'. > Rather than immediately send a pull request I've decided to share my > attempt at categorizing of non-camel documents here to invite discussion on > whether they should be included in the camel list, or not, and to allow for > others to spot things I've either mis-categorized or missed. > My main criteria for putting something on one of these lists is that > implementers not be in the intended audience for the document. That is, if > the document doesn't directly contribute to a decision about whether or how > to write code, it should appear here. My goal is to list everything that has DNS as its main thrust, even if it can be safely ignored because it merely specifies how DNS can be used for something. The reason for listing this stuff is that this at least stores the knowledge that this RFC is not required reading. This is then 'dns-use'. These documents are hidden by the default filter settings. > There's an additional category that I didn't dig into that actually > contributes negatively to the camel: deprecations (e.g. RFC 6563). Yes - even though you still have to read them. > Operational Guides So this overlaps hugely with "INFORMATIONAL" and "BCP", but indeed likely still worth its own section. > Proposals > rfc1535 Unsure what to make of this document. > > Essays and Comments > rfc1178 > rfc1591 > rfc2826 > rfc3071 > rfc3467 > rfc6305 This is likely my 'dns-meta' category. > Correspondence between parties (?) > rfc1401 Perhaps we should have an 'oddball' category :-) > Summaries of Discussions and other "Current Status" documents > rfc2825 > rfc3130 > rfc7085 > rfc7626 dns-meta perhaps too? > Requirements Documents and Problem Statements > rfc4892 > rfc4986 > rfc5507 > rfc6168 > rfc6761 > rfc8244 Agree. > Procedural and Policy Documents (for IANA & other non-operations groups) > rfc6335 > rfc6841 > rfc6895 > rfc6912 Perhaps this could go with rfc1401 as 'procedural'? Bert _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
