[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Google
  Web www.spinics.net

Re: provisioning software, was DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with



Mark Andrews wrote:
> 
> Randy claimed that presentation formats were not standardised.  They
> are.  Randy and others claimed that the presentation formats were
> owned by BIND and they are not.
> 
> I never claimed that STD 13 was the be all and end all w.r.t. DNS.
> 
> STD 13 didn't follow the normal process required to make a STD.

That does not matter here.  By assigning the "full standard" document
maturity label to rfc1034/rfc1035 


>
> There are lots of corrections to STD 13 in the RFC series.

That is a misunderstanding of the standards process.  The only corrections
to rfc1034/rfc1035 that exist are those that have been filed as errata
and confirmed (accessible with the Errata URL here):
    http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1034
    http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1035

But even the posted erratas are "soft" and not visible here:

    http://tools.ietf.org/html/std13

The only document that could be reasonably expected to be "considered"
be a new implementation is rfc2181 (plus maybe rfc4343), although
you have to keep in mind that neither of this is mentioned by STD13.



Btw. the updates metadata on rfc1035 looks like a big mess to me.
Expecting *anyone* to read all of the documents and merge them
in their heads while implementing is completely unrealistic.

The normal implementation approach is to use the base specification
plus a "clarifications" document if one exists, implement the mandatory
parts of that, and ship the result as a first step.  As a second step,
depending on requirements and funding/resouces, selected optional features
from the base spec and from other optional protocol extensions may get added.


> 
> > I looked at least at the titles of all the documents that update 1035,
> > and none of them appear to be related to the above.  So where should
> > we be looking?

To answer the question "does my client have to expect and cope gracefully
with an RCODE 4 response", only 1034/1035 and the filed erratas are relevant.


-Martin
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf


[IETF Annoucements]     [IETF Obscurity Interest]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux]     [Pilates]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]

Add to Google