Subject: [DNSOP] Enough to break a camel's back?

From: Nick Johnson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2018 10:37:24 +0000

I'm working on something DNS related, and needed to reference a number of
the DNS RFCs. With the IETF 101 "camel's back" talk in my mind, I found
myself wondering - just how big *are* all the DNS RFCs together?

So I threw together a quick script
<https://gist.github.com/Arachnid/c51b450b0c80eb246394aab5c867d666> that
collates together all RFCs with a particular tag, or updated by those RFCs,
into PDFs. And once I had that, well...

Notably this doesn't include at least a few DNS related RFCs that weren't
tagged "DNS", such as RFC5155. It also doesn't pull in citations, since
those are mentioned only in the text, not in the XML metadata. So the
correct count is probably a bit more than the ~1300 pages you see here.

---

From: Paul Wouters <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2018 08:11:37 -0400

> On Apr 25, 2018, at 06:37, Nick Johnson <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> So I threw together a quick script that collates together all RFCs with a particular tag, or updated by those RFCs, into PDFs. And once I had that, well...

Your script has —include-obsoletes=

Did you print those for your picture? Notably some other people who did these page counts did include those at first as well, giving a somewhat distorted look and feel.

Paul

---

From: Nick Johnson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2018 12:44:08 +0000

No, I left out RFCs only referenced by "obsoletes" metadata.

On Wed, 25 Apr 2018, 13:11 Paul Wouters, <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Did you print those for your picture? Notably some other people who did
> these page counts did include those at first as well, giving a somewhat
> distorted look and feel.
>
> Paul
>

---

From: Paul Wouters <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2018 09:38:39 -0400 (EDT)

> No, I left out RFCs only referenced by "obsoletes" metadata.

Okay, then the photo is accurate :)

Paul

---

From: Nick Johnson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2018 13:45:35 +0000

Just discovered it lacks RFCs 4035 and 5702 as well. So it's definitely on
the conservative side.

---

From: Paul Vixie <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2018 09:22:21 -0700

Nick Johnson wrote:
> I'm working on something DNS related, and needed to reference a number
> of the DNS RFCs. With the IETF 101 "camel's back" talk in my mind, I
> found myself wondering - just how big *are* all the DNS RFCs together?
>
> ...

see also http://family.redbarn.org/~vixie/apr1.txt

which was at the time a joke

-- 
P Vixie