diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'contrib/bind9/doc/rfc/rfc3197.txt')
| -rw-r--r-- | contrib/bind9/doc/rfc/rfc3197.txt | 283 |
1 files changed, 0 insertions, 283 deletions
diff --git a/contrib/bind9/doc/rfc/rfc3197.txt b/contrib/bind9/doc/rfc/rfc3197.txt deleted file mode 100644 index 94cefa4..0000000 --- a/contrib/bind9/doc/rfc/rfc3197.txt +++ /dev/null @@ -1,283 +0,0 @@ - - - - - - -Network Working Group R. Austein -Request for Comments: 3197 InterNetShare -Category: Informational November 2001 - - - Applicability Statement for DNS MIB Extensions - -Status of this Memo - - This memo provides information for the Internet community. It does - not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution of this - memo is unlimited. - -Copyright Notice - - Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2001). All Rights Reserved. - -Abstract - - This document explains why, after more than six years as proposed - standards, the DNS Server and Resolver MIB extensions were never - deployed, and recommends retiring these MIB extensions by moving them - to Historical status. - -1. History - - The road to the DNS MIB extensions was paved with good intentions. - - In retrospect, it's obvious that the working group never had much - agreement on what belonged in the MIB extensions, just that we should - have some. This happened during the height of the craze for MIB - extensions in virtually every protocol that the IETF was working on - at the time, so the question of why we were doing this in the first - place never got a lot of scrutiny. Very late in the development - cycle we discovered that much of the support for writing the MIB - extensions in the first place had come from people who wanted to use - SNMP SET operations to update DNS zones on the fly. Examination of - the security model involved, however, led us to conclude that this - was not a good way to do dynamic update and that a separate DNS - Dynamic Update protocol would be necessary. - - The MIB extensions started out being fairly specific to one - particular DNS implementation (BIND-4.8.3); as work progressed, the - BIND-specific portions were rewritten to be as implementation-neutral - as we knew how to make them, but somehow every revision of the MIB - extensions managed to create new counters that just happened to - closely match statistics kept by some version of BIND. As a result, - the MIB extensions ended up being much too big, which raised a number - - - -Austein Informational [Page 1] - -RFC 3197 Applicability Statement - DNS MIB Extensions November 2001 - - - of concerns with the network management directorate, but the WG - resisted every attempt to remove any of these variables. In the end, - large portions of the MIB extensions were moved into optional groups - in an attempt to get the required subset down to a manageable size. - - The DNS Server and Resolver MIB extensions were one of the first - attempts to write MIB extensions for a protocol usually considered to - be at the application layer. Fairly early on it became clear that, - while it was certainly possible to write MIB extensions for DNS, the - SMI was not really designed with this sort of thing in mind. A case - in point was the attempt to provide direct indexing into the caches - in the resolver MIB extensions: while arguably the only sane way to - do this for a large cache, this required much more complex indexing - clauses than is usual, and ended up running into known length limits - for object identifiers in some SNMP implementations. - - Furthermore, the lack of either real proxy MIB support in SNMP - managers or a standard subagent protocol meant that there was no - reasonable way to implement the MIB extensions in the dominant - implementation (BIND). When the AgentX subagent protocol was - developed a few years later, we initially hoped that this would - finally clear the way for an implementation of the DNS MIB - extensions, but by the time AgentX was a viable protocol it had - become clear that nobody really wanted to implement these MIB - extensions. - - Finally, the MIB extensions took much too long to produce. In - retrospect, this should have been a clear warning sign, particularly - when the WG had clearly become so tired of the project that the - authors found it impossible to elicit any comments whatsoever on the - documents. - -2. Lessons - - Observations based on the preceding list of mistakes, for the benefit - of anyone else who ever attempts to write DNS MIB extensions again: - - - Define a clear set of goals before writing any MIB extensions. - Know who the constituency is and make sure that what you write - solves their problem. - - - Keep the MIB extensions short, and don't add variables just - because somebody in the WG thinks they'd be a cool thing to - measure. - - - If some portion of the task seems to be very hard to do within the - SMI, that's a strong hint that SNMP is not the right tool for - whatever it is that you're trying to do. - - - -Austein Informational [Page 2] - -RFC 3197 Applicability Statement - DNS MIB Extensions November 2001 - - - - If the entire project is taking too long, perhaps that's a hint - too. - -3. Recommendation - - In view of the community's apparent total lack of interest in - deploying these MIB extensions, we recommend that RFCs 1611 and 1612 - be reclassified as Historical documents. - -4. Security Considerations - - Re-classifying an existing MIB document from Proposed Standard to - Historic should not have any negative impact on security for the - Internet. - -5. IANA Considerations - - Getting rid of the DNS MIB extensions should not impose any new work - on IANA. - -6. Acknowledgments - - The author would like to thank all the people who were involved in - this project over the years for their optimism and patience, - misguided though it may have been. - -7. References - - [DNS-SERVER-MIB] Austein, R. and J. Saperia, "DNS Server MIB - Extensions", RFC 1611, May 1994. - - [DNS-RESOLVER-MIB] Austein, R. and J. Saperia, "DNS Resolver MIB - Extensions", RFC 1612, May 1994. - - [DNS-DYNAMIC-UPDATE] Vixie, P., Thomson, S., Rekhter, Y. and J. - Bound, "Dynamic Updates in the Domain Name - System (DNS UPDATE)", RFC 2136, April 1997. - - [AGENTX] Daniele, M., Wijnen, B., Ellison, M., and D. - Francisco, "Agent Extensibility (AgentX) - Protocol Version 1", RFC 2741, January 2000. - - - - - - - - - - -Austein Informational [Page 3] - -RFC 3197 Applicability Statement - DNS MIB Extensions November 2001 - - -8. Author's Address - - Rob Austein - InterNetShare, Incorporated - 325M Sharon Park Drive, Suite 308 - Menlo Park, CA 94025 - USA - - EMail: sra@hactrn.net - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Austein Informational [Page 4] - -RFC 3197 Applicability Statement - DNS MIB Extensions November 2001 - - -9. Full Copyright Statement - - Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2001). All Rights Reserved. - - This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to - others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it - or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published - and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any - kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are - included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this - document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing - the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other - Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of - developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for - copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be - followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than - English. - - The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be - revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns. - - This document and the information contained herein is provided on an - "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING - TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING - BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION - HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF - MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. - -Acknowledgement - - Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the - Internet Society. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Austein Informational [Page 5] - |
