Hi,
On 2010-01-05, at 03:34, SM wrote:
Is what is proposed in this draft a matter of interest to the DNS Operations
Working Group? If so, the document could have been brought to the attention
of the relevant working group before the Last Call. That doesn't preclude
the draft from being an individual submission. The IAB Stream might be more
appropriate though, given the area it covers.
We think the re-delegation of IN-ADDR.ARPA and IP6.ARPA is of great interest to
dnsop and other operational forums outside the IETF, and as I mentioned
yesterday the redelegation of both zones includes a communication plan intended
to inform the operational community of the changes that are taking place. Those
plans are still in draft form, as noted yesterday. We appreciate that there are
likely to be some hard-coded references to the current NS RRSet for both zones
which will behave differently following the change.
We had expected the naming scheme (just the naming scheme, not the
redelegation) for the nameservers to stimulate less operational interest, and
did not specifically publicise the document there. However, the existence of
the draft was brought to the attention of the dnsop wg in a review posted there
by Alfred Hoenes on 13 November:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsop/current/msg07815.html
and that review fed some of the changes that appeared in -01:
http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?difftype=--hwdiff&url2=draft-jabley-reverse-servers-01.txt
I believe there was no other reaction to -00 by the participants of the dnsop
wg, although it was a couple of months ago and perhaps my memory is faulty.
The intended status of this draft is Standard Track. As the proposal is
about operations, BCP looks like a better fit. The proposal could be fitted
into an update of BCP 49, with the removal of the parts of RFC 3152 that have
been obsoleted by RFC 3596.
The proposal is not directly concerned with operations, but with the procedural
assignment of namespace under the ARPA zone. We were advised that the use of
domains under ARPA in this way, per RFC 3172, required a standards-track RFC,
hence this document.
We also considered simply registering a domain under NET or some other TLD,
which would have led to a naming scheme that required no documentation in the
IETF (although we might have written up an informational draft for the
historical record). However, we think the application is well-suited to the
ARPA TLD as described in 3172, the IAB did not disagree, and here we are.
Section 4 of this draft contains a (proposed) IAB Statement. As this is a
Last Call, I expect that the subject of this draft has come up in discussions
between the IESG and the IANA liaison and that IAB has been informed. There
is no mention of the matter in IESG or IAB minutes.
The text that appears in the document in section 4 was supplied to the document
authors by the IAB following their internal review of the document. I know that
people on the IESG are aware of it since I've talked to them, but I'm not sure
I would expect that awareness to be reflected in telechat minutes.
Section 6 of RFC 3172 mentions that any new subdomain delegation must
adequately document any security considerations specific to the information
stored therein. Irrespective of whether this proposal is about a new
subdomain delegation of not, it would be informative to the reader if Section
6 of this draft did more than say that it introduces no additional security
risks for the Internet.
Unless someone can identify new security risks for the Internet that assigning
these two names would cause, I don't know what other text could plausibly be
included in section 6. If you have suggestions, I would happily read them.
Joe
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf