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, Tim Wicinski <tjw.i...@gmail.com> 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 build a DNS Server (Authoritative or Resolver), what would I need to > give them". I also have spent a lot of time watching the 793bis work in > TCPM, which has been moving along slowly and methodically. I felt what we > would come up with would be > 1. a DNSOP document which would be an implementation list for building > an Authoritative or Resolver > 2. a roadmap to work on 1034bis and 1035bis, which would be a new WG. > > I also realized that the second item would be brutal, painstaking, not > "sexy" for most IETF standard types. > > I've had lots of experience dealing with the concept of "technical debt" > and a lot of this is very similar. But we also need someone who has the > skill set of a project manager, who knows how to lay out workflows. That's > not something a bunch of programmers always have. > > Summary - Paul is on the right track here. A good example is looking at > what Route 53 implements (for better or for worse) and realize they > implement some real minimal subset. I think it's too small, but it's an > interesting argument. > > tim > > > > > On 3/27/18 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. >> >> 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 >>> >> >> >
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
