On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 05:29:18PM +0200, Matthijs Mekking wrote: > As mentioned in the meeting, I am in favor of requiring implementations > before drafts become standards. > > However, I would be opposed to limit acceptable implementations to the few > major open source DNS implementations (define major). It should be > acceptable for other organizations or just persons to contribute a reference > implementation.
It depends on the topic of the draft of course, esp. where in operations it applies. If it is nameserver territory, I absolutely want to see an implementation in *any* of the major DNS implementations. By major, I mean the popular ones (e.g., PowerDNS, NSD, Unbound, Knot, etc.) This is because: * A full-fledged nameserver is somewhat different from a toy implementation in performance and scalability (this point is from experience with a bad implementation of a draft) * The rest of us want to see proof that it can be implemented (not just a promise or mention of implementation) and play with it and observe operational characteristics _freely_, and determine whether a draft will really improve things in the way it says it will. E.g., take all the multiple-answer drafts that are making the rounds.. in Singapore there was a presentation of a grand matrix of them, but who knows how they actually perform? It's 2018. We aren't living in the dark ages with a single DNS implementation. If a draft is for nameserver software to implement, and if the authors cannot implement it by themselves, they can persuade one of the open source vendors to do so. If they are unable to persuade any, that should be enough consensus about how significant that draft is. Speaking for myself, we in our DNS implementation add support for several drafts early in the draft stage because they look necessary or interesting, or because we want to know how they behave early on. Mukund _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop