Re: Last Call: <draft-iab-2870bis-01.txt> (DNS Root Name Service Protoco

On May 30, 2014, at 10:26 AM, Patrik Fältström <paf(_at_)frobbit(_dot_)se> 
wrote:
> > I guess I just don't see the point. I suppose it doesn't really do any harm, 
> > but as Patrik states, it isn't going to have any impact so why bother? 
> Because without documents like these there will be no chance what so ever of 
> having someone hitting the root server operator(s?) in the head with it.
And that has worked so well in the past with root service? As mentioned, the 
IETF has published other documents on root server operational behavior with 
less than stellar results. I personally do not see much value in the IETF 
repeatedly writing documents that are simply ignored (the opposite, actually).

This is not to say that I feel documenting recommendations (not requirements) 
aren't of value, particularly if those recommendations are objectively 
justified (e.g., "IPv6 should be supported to ensure IPv6-only service operates 
on par with IPv4-only service" or something). Draft-iab-2870bis-01.txt doesn't 
do this. Draft-iab-2870bis-01.txt pretends the IETF (IAB?) has the ability to 
dictate how an operational service MUST be provided without any explanation or 
rationale.

Regards,
-drc

P.S. I also find it odd this is coming out of the IAB. Why this isn't a DNSOP 
document? It is sort of related to DNS Operations, no?

signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail