If we want to make a significant change to DNS, such as yank out some features that were never used, we have a minimum of about six years before the change can be made.
First we would have to get an ID written and progress it through the working group, that would be two years. Then we would have to get the proposed standard to draft, a minimum of two years. Then we would have to go from draft to standard, which has not happened to a DNS spec since the fall of the Soviet Union.
We currently have the idiotic position where RFC821 is a full standard and RFC2821 which obsoletes it is not.
On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 11:16 AM, Andrew Sullivan <ajs@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 10:12:13AM +0200, Eliot Lear wrote:In connection with that question, I'll observe that a very large
> Question #1: Is such a signal needed today? If we look at the 1694
> Proposed Standards, are we seeing a lack of implementation due to lack
> of stability? I would claim that there are quite a number of examples
> to the contrary (but see below).
number of the DNS protocol documents have not advanced along the
standards track, and efforts to do something about that state of
affairs have not been very successful. In addition, any time there is
an effort to make a change to anything already deployed is met by
arguments that we shouldn't change the protocol in even the slightest
detail, because of all the deployed code. (I've been known to make
that argument myself.)
I don't know whether the DNS is special in this regard, though I have
doubts.
A
--
Andrew Sullivan
ajs@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Shinkuro, Inc.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
--
Website: http://hallambaker.com/
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf