Re: [DNSOP] Subject: request for adoption: draft-edns-presentation
Hi Pieter, Dne 24. 11. 22 v 11:41 Pieter Lexis napsal(a): I wonder if it should update RFC 6891 and all related OPTION RFCs as well. I'm not sure as well. I also wonder if it could make sense to add guidance on how to choose the correct presentation format for newly drafted EDNS options so future option-drafts and documents have presentation formats in there. Thanks much for this idea! We will definitely add some guidance for future EDNS(0) options' specifications authors. Best regards, Pieter ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org Nice friday! Libor ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
Re: [DNSOP] Subject: request for adoption: draft-edns-presentation
Hi Libor and Tom, Thank you for submitting the draft. The first step is to receive feedback from the WG on the mailing list and possibly with a presentation of the draft during a DNSOP WG meeting. If there is sufficient interest from the WG, the DNSOP chairs will start with a formal call for adoption of the document. So for now, WG please provide feedback on the draft and express support that this work is relevant to WG. However, support for adoption is not (yet) polled by the WG chairs. Cheers, -- Benno On 23/11/2022 20:25, libor.peltan wrote: Hi DNSOP, we have prepared a specification document (see below), which fills a gap that appears to be missing currently — The EDNS(0) textual and JSON format. It also fixes a "specification bug" in an existing and related RFC. We believe this draft is pretty much complete and have a first PoC implementation ready. While it would be viable to submit it individually, we believe that the adoption by the WG would be generally beneficial. We would also welcome any improvement suggestions and useful corrections. However, fearing discussion loops arguments about details, we encourage to moderate discussion of details, such as if some fields in a specific option shall be separated by commas or slashes. This document is full of design decisions that might be differently appealing to everyone. The format might seem complicated, but the goal was best possible human readability. And the more general (and important) goal is to make the standard useful, so that it gets adopted by implementations. Thank you for reading the document and for considering its adoption, Libor & Tom Přeposlaná zpráva Předmět: New Version Notification for draft-peltan-edns-presentation-format-00.txt Datum: Wed, 23 Nov 2022 11:20:19 -0800 Od: internet-dra...@ietf.org Komu: Libor Peltan , Tom Carpay A new version of I-D, draft-peltan-edns-presentation-format-00.txt has been successfully submitted by Libor Peltan and posted to the IETF repository. Name: draft-peltan-edns-presentation-format Revision: 00 Title: EDNS Presentation and JSON Format Document date: 2022-11-23 Group: Individual Submission Pages: 19 URL: https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-peltan-edns-presentation-format-00.txt Status: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-peltan-edns-presentation-format/ Htmlized: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-peltan-edns-presentation-format Abstract: This document describes textual and JSON representation format of EDNS option. It also modifies the escaping rules of JSON representation of DNS messages, previously defined in RFC8427. The IETF Secretariat ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
Re: [DNSOP] Subject: request for adoption: draft-edns-presentation
Hi Libor, Tom, Thanks for this, I believe this will be a good extension to the EDNS specification to help operators hunt down issues. I support its adoption by the WG. Should the WG disagree, please submit it as an individual submission. On Wed, 2022-11-23 at 20:25 +0100, libor.peltan wrote: > Hi DNSOP, > we have prepared a specification document (see below), which fills a > gap > that appears to be missing currently — The EDNS(0) textual and JSON > format. > It also fixes a "specification bug" in an existing and related RFC. I wonder if it should update RFC 6891 and all related OPTION RFCs as well. I also wonder if it could make sense to add guidance on how to choose the correct presentation format for newly drafted EDNS options so future option-drafts and documents have presentation formats in there. > We would also welcome any improvement suggestions and useful > corrections. However, fearing discussion loops arguments about > details, > we encourage to moderate discussion of details, such as if some > fields > in a specific option shall be separated by commas or slashes. > This document is full of design decisions that might be differently > appealing to everyone. The format might seem complicated, but the > goal > was best possible human readability. > And the more general (and important) goal is to make the standard > useful, so that it gets adopted by implementations. I had a cursory glance and it looks quite complete. I'll try to get a better reading in soon. Best regards, Pieter ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
[DNSOP] Subject: request for adoption: draft-edns-presentation
Hi DNSOP, we have prepared a specification document (see below), which fills a gap that appears to be missing currently — The EDNS(0) textual and JSON format. It also fixes a "specification bug" in an existing and related RFC. We believe this draft is pretty much complete and have a first PoC implementation ready. While it would be viable to submit it individually, we believe that the adoption by the WG would be generally beneficial. We would also welcome any improvement suggestions and useful corrections. However, fearing discussion loops arguments about details, we encourage to moderate discussion of details, such as if some fields in a specific option shall be separated by commas or slashes. This document is full of design decisions that might be differently appealing to everyone. The format might seem complicated, but the goal was best possible human readability. And the more general (and important) goal is to make the standard useful, so that it gets adopted by implementations. Thank you for reading the document and for considering its adoption, Libor & Tom Přeposlaná zpráva Předmět: New Version Notification for draft-peltan-edns-presentation-format-00.txt Datum: Wed, 23 Nov 2022 11:20:19 -0800 Od: internet-dra...@ietf.org Komu: Libor Peltan , Tom Carpay A new version of I-D, draft-peltan-edns-presentation-format-00.txt has been successfully submitted by Libor Peltan and posted to the IETF repository. Name: draft-peltan-edns-presentation-format Revision: 00 Title: EDNS Presentation and JSON Format Document date: 2022-11-23 Group: Individual Submission Pages: 19 URL: https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-peltan-edns-presentation-format-00.txt Status: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-peltan-edns-presentation-format/ Htmlized: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-peltan-edns-presentation-format Abstract: This document describes textual and JSON representation format of EDNS option. It also modifies the escaping rules of JSON representation of DNS messages, previously defined in RFC8427. The IETF Secretariat ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
