the problem here is that rarely has the IETF managed to actually map its expectations to operational reality. RFC 2010 did, for about 60 days. RFC 2870 never did. And neither does this document. the trend line is away from credibility, which is not really where I think the ietf should be headed, but ymmv. if this document were to be recast as “Protocol Requirements for DNS Servers” - that would be a valuable document. in its current form, not so much. /bill Neca eos omnes. Deus suos agnoscet. On 29May2014Thursday, at 23:38, Patrik Fältström <paf@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 29 maj 2014, at 22:48, David Conrad <drc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> I'm disappointed that people would argue that Yet Another IETF RFC is required to get folks to do stuff they already know they should be doing. > > Aha, then here is where I think we have different opinion. > > I do not see this draft be anything people think will change things. I see personally this be an updated version of the RFC stating what IETF do believe should be implemented. > > Once again, the enforcement is somewhere else. > > But if whatever the enforcement is to refer to is not correct, then it is absolutely for certain the enforcement will not happen. > > So, phew, I do not think we are very far away from each other this time either. ;-) > > Patrik >