Re: I-D ACTION:draft-sanz-rfc1032-historic-00.txt

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 





--On 31. august 2005 03:08 -0700 "william(at)elan.net" <william@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

As such if RFC1032 is being considered for moving to historic (which
may need to happen but I see no reason to do it right now and I think
it would be difficult because many other non-historic RFCs depend on
it), some of what is there that people think is relevant should be
considered for new BCP RFC.

Just because I was curious, I used some time on this....
Bill Fenner's tool <http://rtg.ietf.org/~fenner/ietf/deps/index.cgi> says (content descriptions mine, based on RFC index):

Documents that depend on: RFC1032

Depending document				Type of dependency
rfc1031 (Unknown)		rfc1032 (Unknown)	unknown	MILNET ops
rfc1034 (Standard)	rfc1032 (Unknown)	unknown	DNS spec
rfc1035 (Standard)	rfc1032 (Unknown)	unknown	DNS spec
rfc1183 (Experimental)	rfc1032 (Unknown)	unknown	DNS - more rectypes
rfc1348 (Experimental)	rfc1032 (Unknown)	unknown	DNS NSAP RRs
rfc2052 (???)		rfc1032 (Unknown)	unknown	DNS SRV
rfc1464 (Experimental)	rfc1032 (Unknown)	unknown	DNS arbitary strings
rfc2053 (???)		rfc1032 (Unknown)	reference	AM domain ops
rfc1480 (???)		rfc1032 (Unknown)	reference	US domain ops
rfc1401 (Informational)	rfc1032 (Unknown)	reference	Correspondence
rfc1386 (Informational)	rfc1032 (Unknown)	reference	US domain ops
rfc1123 (Standard)	rfc1032 (Unknown)	reference	Host Requirements
rfc2065 (???)		rfc1032 (Unknown)	reference	DNSSEC original

Now if we agree that the operations documents and the corrspondence document are not critical, using the same logic as the logic used for dismissing RFC 1032, we have the following possibly interesting dependencies:

RFC 1034 - DNS base specs
 Reference: "Current policy for the top levels is discussed in [RFC-1032]."
Reference: "While there are no particular technical constraints dealing with where in the tree this can be done, there are some administrative groupings discussed in [RFC-1032] which deal with top level organization, and middle level zones are free to create their own rules."

 Hardly a normative dependency.

RFC 1035 - DNS base specs
 Appears in reference list, but is not referenced in the text.
 Hardly normative.

RFC 1183 - DNS record types
 Appears in reference list, but is not referenced in the text.
 Hardly normative.

RFC 1348 - DNS NSAP RR
 Appears in reference list, but is not referenced in the text.
 This is getting to be familiar....

RFC 2052 - DNS SRV
 Appears in....

RFC 1123 - Host Requirements

        6.1.4.1  DNS Administration

           This document is concerned with design and implementation
           issues in host software, not with administrative or
           operational issues.  However, administrative issues are of
           particular importance in the DNS, since errors in particular
           segments of this large distributed database can cause poor
           or erroneous performance for many sites.  These issues are
           discussed in [DNS:6] and [DNS:7].
  (DNS:6 is RFC 1032)

RFC 2065 - DNSSEC

  Appears in reference list, but is not referenced in text....
  .... and of course this has been obsoleted by 2535, which is itself
  obsoleted.....

(If the authors of draft-sanz want to, they are free to use the information above..... it's all public info anyway.)

While I still don't see any reason to bother with changing "status UNKNOWN" to something else, I think the argument that "so many other RFCs depend on it" can be safely dismissed now - unless someone comes up with a real example of a NORMATIVE dependency on RFC 1032, of course. I could be wrong.

                      Harald






Attachment: pgpMoZYujhOtC.pgp
Description: PGP signature

_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]