Hi everyone, I've been looking at the amount of DNS out there, and I think we can do several things with them. I've also concluded that the mediocrity of DNS implementations outside of the well-known ones can not be fully blamed on "stupid programmers". The fact that we've offered the world 1000-2000 pages to read, with no guideline where to start, is also very likely to have contributed.
In fact, to this day, if someone wanted to 'get' DNS to implement a server, I can do no better than point them at 1034/1035 which are pretty archaic by now and not easy to read. A bit like reading the original Shakespeare. It is English, but a lot of the words are different. (also, still pretty insightful stuff). I am optimistic that if we had a better 'hello, and welcome to DNS' document we could point to, implementations would get better. Or if they didn't, we could at least point at that document and blame them for not reading it. This may prevent implementations that get confused if they get anything other than an A query. So my first suggested action is: could we write a document that has a core introduction of DNS and then provides a recommended (not) reading list. Secondly, what we've been doing already, is grouping the various standards in categories. Read this if you are doing X. This could go in the first document. Thirdly, this may lead to a category of RFCs that you might be better off not reading or implementing. I don't know if writing a draft that specifically obsoletes record types or features that are never used is helpful. In fact, adding MORE documents to the pile (even if meant to make life easier) may be counterproductive. But simply noting that something should not be implemented anymore would do rhe trick. Fourthly, on the currently active drafts aiming to become Internet Standards (with page numbers): DNS Multiple QTYPEs 6 Secret Key Transaction Authentication for DNS (TSIG) 21 Address-specific DNS Name Redirection (ANAME) 11 C-DNS: A DNS Packet Capture Format 58 Extended DNS Errors 8 A Root Key Trust Anchor Sentinel for DNSSEC 14 Let 'localhost' be localhost. 9 Providing Minimal-Sized Responses to DNS Queries that have QTYPE=ANY 10 Security Considerations for RFC5011 Publishers 18 Serving Stale Data to Improve DNS Resiliency 9 DNS Stateful Operations 49 BULK DNS Resource Records 14 A DNS Query including A Main Question with Accompanying Questions 10 Returning extra answers in DNS responses. 8 These represent 245 pages of new reading material, or an increase of over 10% on the already impressive list of DNS standards. I did a cursory read of the DNSOP charter, and I think at least some of these drafts do no not fall under even a very broad interpretation of our remit. And the BCP/Informational/Experimental ones: The ALT Special Use Top Level Domain 10 INFORMATIONAL DNS Scoped Data Through '_Underscore' Naming of Attribute Leaves 8 BEST CURRENT PRACTICE DNS Transport over TCP - Operational Requirements 14 BEST CURRENT PRACTICE An Proxy Use Case of DNS over HTTPS 5 EXPERIMENTAL Reverse DNS in IPv6 for Internet Service Providers 13 INFORMATIONAL DNS Terminology 42 BEST CURRENT PRACTICE DNS Catalog Zones 14 EXPERIMENTAL Similarly, we might give these a good scan to see what we think of these. Finally, with Job Snijders, I am very much in favour of mandating interoperable implementations as a requirement for standards action. There is a whole bunch of reasons for this. For starters, how can we know if an idea is good without having tried it? Secondly, getting implementations to support this is an instant damper on ideas which would not get traction with implementations later on. And thirdly, I think it is extremely educational to experience how a feature that is 'easy' on the authoritative side (say, DNS Multiple QTYPEs) absolutely sucks and leads to probing on the resolver side - requiring whole factors more code than the spec is actually about. Thoughts? Bert _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop