On 15. 05. 19 19:57, Bob Harold wrote: > > On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 1:00 PM John Levine <jo...@taugh.com > <mailto:jo...@taugh.com>> wrote: > > In article <064ba295-f3dd-46e4-86a9-e03cf68eb...@sinodun.com > <mailto:064ba295-f3dd-46e4-86a9-e03cf68eb...@sinodun.com>> you write: > >-=-=-=-=-=- > > > >Hi, > > > >In the spirit of deprecating things I have submitted a draft to > deprecate the status opcode. > > RFC 1034 says it's "To be defined" so this seems a little premature. > > Other than that, go for it. > > > Does this increase or decrease the 'camel' page count?
Personally I think it is not worth the effort, it will just add one more RFC to read and does not help the protocol maintenance. I would say that it is better to have one "cleanup" RFC instead of one-off doc with one useful paragraph in it. With one bigger document we could say to newcommers "this is list of things you can ignore when you encounter them in pile of DNS RFCs". Just my two eurocents. -- Petr Špaček @ CZ.NIC _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
