ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Last Call: draft-jabley-reverse-servers (Nameservers for IPv4 and IPv6 Reverse Zones) to Proposed Standard

2010-01-05 00:01:40

On 2010-01-04, at 21:40, John C Klensin wrote:

Ok, Joe, a few questions since, as indicated in another note,
you are generating these documents in your ICANN capacity:

(1) If ICANN can re-delegate the servers for these domains
without IAB or IETF action, why is IETF action needed to create
the new names?  They are, after all, just names.

We talked to people in the IAB about the idea of naming these servers using a 
consistent scheme under ARPA before we published -00. They were happy with the 
idea of using names under ARPA and indicated, following a review of 3172, that 
a standards action was required for the corresponding delegation.

(2) If IETF action is needed at all, why is this coming from you
as an individual submission, rather than as a formal request
from IANA to the IAB, presumably via normal liaison channels?
Ordinarily, and consistent with RFC 3172, this request would
come to the IAB and not via an individual submission to the IESG
since no "protocol entity" is involved?

We discussed our plans with people in the IAB, and they advised us that an 
individual submission internet-draft was an appropriate path to take. We 
followed their advice.

(3) And why is this being processed as a Proposed Standard
rather than as a BCP (like other documents describing
allocations in .ARPA such as RFC 3152 (BCP49) and 3405 (BCP65))
or some sort of informational one?

Members of the IAB advised us, with reference to RFC 3172, that a standards 
action document was required because a delegation from ARPA was being requested.

(4) I also note that this document appears to update Section 4
of RFC 3172 but does not note that.

Section 4 of RFC 3172 describes the state of the ARPA zone at the time that 
3172 was written. It is my understanding that updating that section with a 
document today would require access to a time machine, and my colleagues on the 
third floor indicate that time travel is not considered to be covered by the 
IANA Functions Contract.

 In addition, while that
Section 4 indicates, as of September 2001...

      "...The IAB is working with ICANN, IANA, and the
      regional registries to move "arpa" and "in-addr.arpa"
      records from the root servers in accord with the RFC
      2870 recommendation for exclusive use of those servers."

...the IAB has not been consulted on this issue (at least since
last March).

I am not aware of what work was being done in 2001 with respect to redelegation 
of IN-ADDR.ARPA and ARPA. I can only assume that the intentions documented in 
3172 were not followed through for some reason.


Joe
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf