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 implement. any implementer can remove anything else and
still be checklist-compatible when customers are baking things off.
if someone wants to implement iquery or WKS let that be crazy rather
than broken -- on-the-wire patterns still described, code points still
reserved, but unlikely to find anybody to actually interoperate with.
vixie
re:
Matthew Pounsett wrote:
On 27 March 2018 at 03:49, Ondřej Surý <ond...@isc.org
<mailto:ond...@isc.org>> 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 the same time tend to not reach the
finish line.
Does this include combining documents? For example, it would probably
make sense to combine some of the clarifications documents into any
rewrite of 1034/1035.
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
--
P Vixie
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
