3 ms·

Here's an example of the problem with that though: a mailing[0] by someone in February of this year asking if there's a formal grammar for the DNS zone (master)

by nly 11y ago

Here's an example of the problem with that though: a mailing[0] by someone in February of this year asking if there's a formal grammar for the DNS zone (master) file format. This is a format that was first loosely specified in a RFC almost 32 years ago and there still isn't a rigorous definition. BIND now specifies a defacto interpretation with lots of liberal "treat this as a warning" options[1] and new gTLDs registries now insist on a subset of the original specification. HTTP also has corner cases that widely-used implementations simply aren't handling consistently because the original RFCs are vague or the ideas being conveyed are buried in even older RFCs that nobody has the incentive to drill in to, or simply aren't known to them. IMHO the IETF really should move to a wiki format, where information and wording changes on a particular protocol can be seen in one place. Plaintext snapshots of particular versions could still be published. [0] https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsop/current/msg13349.html https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsop/current/msg13349... [1] https://kea.isc.org/wiki/ZoneLoadingRequirements#a3.3RFCimplementationrequirements:parsing https://kea.isc.org/wiki/ZoneLoadingRequirements#a3.3RFCimpl...

Arnt 11y ago
BTW there's a reason for that. The IETF decided (it must be a couple of decades ago) to restrict itself to matters of the internet. Things like file formats are thus out of scope for RFCs. There have been exceptions, RFC5952 is a good example and I know at least two others, but by and large RFCs are about the internet now, not about file formats or other worthy subjects.
- nly 11y ago
  RFC7159? It even recommends a file extension.
  - Arnt 11y ago
    That's a perfect example: Publishable as an RFC because the format is used in many APIs on the general internet, but also says a little about a local matter, in this case the file names. Is the rule a bit messy? Yes it is!
- Alupis 11y ago
  RFC 6120 and 6121 are for XMPP (chat), and define XML is to be used, and even goes into the exact structure of the XML "packets".
  - zeen 11y ago
    Bad example. XML is the wire format in XMPP RFCs, not a file format.
zdw 11y ago
There's a reason why I try to use the tinydns zonefile format (http://cr.yp.to/djbdns/tinydns-data.html http://cr.yp.to/djbdns/tinydns-data.html) whenever I can. It's so much simpler to use, and less problematic.

by nly 11y ago

Arnt 11y ago

BTW there's a reason for that. The IETF decided (it must be a couple of decades ago) to restrict itself to matters of the internet. Things like file formats are thus out of scope for RFCs. There have been exceptions, RFC5952 is a good example and I know at least two others, but by and large RFCs are about the internet now, not about file formats or other worthy subjects.

nly 11y ago
RFC7159? It even recommends a file extension.
- Arnt 11y ago
  That's a perfect example: Publishable as an RFC because the format is used in many APIs on the general internet, but also says a little about a local matter, in this case the file names. Is the rule a bit messy? Yes it is!
Alupis 11y ago
RFC 6120 and 6121 are for XMPP (chat), and define XML is to be used, and even goes into the exact structure of the XML "packets".
- zeen 11y ago
  Bad example. XML is the wire format in XMPP RFCs, not a file format.

zdw 11y ago

There's a reason why I try to use the tinydns zonefile format (http://cr.yp.to/djbdns/tinydns-data.html http://cr.yp.to/djbdns/tinydns-data.html) whenever I can. It's so much simpler to use, and less problematic.