On Sun, Apr 01, 2018 at 02:39:06AM +0530, Mukund Sivaraman wrote:
> Just a "guide to the RFCs" won't be sufficient. Language has to be
> corrected; large parts of RFC 1034 and 1035 have to be rewritten and
> restructured, incorporating clarifications from newer RFCs. It would be
> a big work, but IMHO, it is necessary.
First, I agree it is necessary. I don't think anyone would really disagree.
The issue is the stupendous amount of work it would be and if we are going
to do it.
A secondary question is how hard we are going to make this on ourselves if
we do it. This comprises a number of things: 1) which RFCs would be obsoleted
by the rewrite (2181?)and which ones are we going to leave in place (403x?)
2) What 'optional' things are we going to move into scope of DNS basics. In
other words, what will 1034/1035-bis say about DNSSEC?
Tbh I highly doubt if we'll have the determination to do 1034-bis given that
even the profile efforts did not succeed so far.
I will in any case continue to plod away on the 'hello-dns' introduction.
I'm not sure what to make of this but over 25000 unique IP addresses visited
the site (for around 40000 page views) after it was listed on 'Hacker News'.
Perhaps there is some pent-up demand?
Bert
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
