I can't remember offhand if DNS got to full standard or not, lets say for
the sake of argument that it did.
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(_at_)shinkuro(_dot_)com>
wrote:
On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 10:12:13AM +0200, Eliot Lear wrote:
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).
In connection with that question, I'll observe that a very large
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(_at_)shinkuro(_dot_)com
Shinkuro, Inc.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
--
Website: http://hallambaker.com/
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf