On 31 March 2018 at 17:34, bert hubert <bert.hub...@powerdns.com> wrote:
> 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? > > > I think that's another question of organization in here too, which is whether the document is operations or implementation, and if it's implementation what part of the architecture is being implemented (e.g. client, server, authority, recursion, ...). I can't decide whether it makes more sense to split up things like stubs, full resolvers, or authoritative servers into separate documents, or to try to describe the whole beast in one document like 1035 did. But, for the core, I'm leaning toward the former.
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
