old: https://dnsdb-api.isc.org
new: https://api.dnsdb.info

[X] keep output format and query format separated in two different documents
[X] we should not specify which rtypes MUST be supported. It is only an output format spec
[X] rrtype should be mnemonic that is supported by IANA
[X] rfc 3597 unknown record type -> reference this rfc for arbitrary rrtypes
[X] same as for RDATA (if it can not format it correctly, it should be formated as in rfc3597

[x] optional: x-more-data-coming: 50   (for Cisco) --> nope... Cisco has a different (pre-recursor ) system. Not part of this draft.


[ ] we define the record format, any extensions should be specified in an RFC describing how the protocol works
[ ] --> specify the control packets in a separate RFC
[ ] --> Paul will ask Robert.

Discussion about Cisco's "more data coming" extension:
fearful of breaking existing programs by adding a bookend
Idea: if you can add &show_progress=1 to ReST GET request, then we can add the fields
If a given implementation supports bookends, progress bars, then these have to be optional and they should be signalled via HTTP GET &parameter

Extension to the record format must be x-* (for exaple x-query-id)
  --> we decided against that because of http://tools.ietf.org/search/rfc6648
  Instead we created a registry in the github wiki

[ ] Samples are OK! But move them to a separate section!



dnstap -> get mail from paul
  in google protocol bufs
  will tap any part of a nameserver (code). 



next steps:
  * private circulation with robert edmonds, bfk, auckland, cert.ee
  * virustotal (?) -> later


submission:
[ ]  the dns-op still exists! So pdns-qof should be submitted to dns-op