Tim Wicinski wrote:
I have been thinking the same thing this evening about 1034 and 1035.
Thanks for bringing it up.
They do not need to have BCP status, but for several years now I have felt
those two need to be republished with all
the updated text from the many updates (28 for 1035, 18 for 1034) in new
documents. This does not include any other
changes, and it feels like a thankless task.
Given that, here in this ML, I repeatedly correct wide spread
misunderstandings on the original rfcs 1034 and 1035, not
extensions to them, every several years, the task can be
performed properly only by PVM, the original author of the
rfcs, as an active editor, I'm afraid.
Masataka Ohta
PS
It should be a lot more productive to totally revise DNS which
should be a thankful task.
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
