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

From: Frank Ellermann <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 06 Sep 2005 03:24:34 +0200

Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:

> <http://rtg.ietf.org/~fenner/ietf/deps/index.cgi>

Nice.  I used another tool for this task, but that's
limited to RfCs up to 3195 (on a now old c'T CD ROM).

> 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.

Not clear - there must be a reason why whois.iana.org exists,
it's not "just for fun".

{...]
> 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)

That says that 1032 is in fact a BCP, but that series didn't
exist at this time.

> 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

Two STDs are more than good enough that it would hit the fan
if somebody tries to kill 1032 in a private vendetta with RFCI.

> - unless someone comes up with a real example of a NORMATIVE
> dependency on RFC 1032, of course. I could be wrong.

Your three points quoted above will do.  With "3912 = 954 - X"
and "X' = 1032" there might be some more indirect dependencies
on the X in 954.  Okay, that's esoteric, 1034 and 1123 will do.

Nobody's really interested to create a proper 1032bis BCP at
this time.  If the whole purpose of the erroneous draft is to
get some ammo against the dubious de.whois.RFCI entry, then a
3912bis using whois.denic.de as example (instead of TLD .mil)
explaining how it supports I18N and the query "?" would be more
constructive.  3912 is bad.  If that 3912bis somehow obsoletes
also 1032 it could be fine, but that's not really necessary.

                            Bye, Frank

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf