Re: DNS IQUERY Obsolete advancement

[Peter Koch <pk@TechFak.Uni-Bielefeld.DE>]

{Cc trimmed}

kre wrote:

> It is going to be kind of interesting when we come to look for two
> or more independent implementations of the failure to implement IQUERY...

My first thought also was how that non-interoperability test would look like.
But then one could argue that it's necessary to show that DNS "works" without
the need to implement IQUERY which calls for the usual standards track approach
(and rapid advancement in this case since "wide deployment" shows IQUERY
*is* not needed).

> This probably should be a BCP, rather than PS etc.

It is more like an Applicability Statement as of RFC 2026, section 3.3(e).
IQUERY is optional in STD 13 anyway, so with current rules applied it would
not have become part of the STD. Section 9 of 2026 could open the door for
instant addition of this draft to the set of STD13. The procedural cost though
may be high compared to the achieved gain given that nobody seems to have
wasted time implementing IQUERY for quite a couple of years.

-Peter


to unsubscribe send a message to namedroppers-request@ops.ietf.org with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.