[dnstap] creating infromational RFC

[Robert Edmonds]

Jerry Lundström wrote:
> If your looking at moving to something other then Protocol Buffer I
> would say use CBOR (RFC 7049) and either use a schema or register a tag.
> CBOR is more or less a standardized MessagePack and it is equal to
> Protocol Buffers.

Hi, Jerry:

I think CBOR is the prime candidate if a dnstap v2 were to be developed,
but my impression from the DNS-OARC meeting is folks are interested in
specifying the existing protocol (dnstap v1), which uses protobufs,
because the existing protocol is what implementations are using.

> Or maybe the RFC should describe the data structure and not how it is
> "packed" or transported?

I do think it is worth specifying the dnstap data model and
serialization profiles separately. Otherwise the spec wouldn't be much
more than a .proto file with comments.

The transport protocol that is typically used for dnstap
(https://github.com/farsightsec/fstrm is the reference implementation)
has nothing in it that's dnstap specific. It could benefit from being
formally specified but I don't see why it would need to be specified in
the same document as dnstap proper.

-- 
Robert Edmonds