This is a discussion on Re: brain cycles of the WG - DNS ; On Tue, 5 Dec 2006, Edward Lewis wrote: >> Agree. There are a lot of (IMHO, more) pressing problems with DNS, such as >> writing an understandable basic specification (think of 'DNS implementation >> requirements') so that 98% of vendors ...
On Tue, 5 Dec 2006, Edward Lewis wrote:
>> Agree. There are a lot of (IMHO, more) pressing problems with DNS, such as
>> writing an understandable basic specification (think of 'DNS implementation
>> requirements') so that 98% of vendors don't get it wrong (or miss important
>> features, e.g., the cache poisoning validaton) in one way or the other.
> This is one of the many good ideas that has floated to the surface time and
> again over the years. Every time this is thought about, we get caught in
> what is "right." E.g., look at what happened when we tried to clarify just
> AXFR. Clarifying wildcards took 4 years. I'd rather waste my time designing
> DNS II than clarifying RFC 1034, et.al.
Yes, I know it's cooler to design new protocols than do maintenance on
the old ones, and I didn't say this would be easy. But if it's too
difficult for us to get agreement on this, how do you think the
implementors will be able to get it right? For overly contentious
topics, one may be able to omit normative specification, but include
some discussion so that the implementor can make an informed decision.
The key point is that I hope that at least 90-95% of DNS
specifications are not contentious and if we are able to recognize
which parts are which, we might be able to make reasonable progress in
finite number of years :-)
I wonder what the implementation and interoperability status of the
basic IP protocols would be without the Host Requirements and Router
Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
to unsubscribe send a message to email@example.com with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.