On 2/9/12 01:25 , Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 00:36, Joel jaeggli <joelja(_at_)bogus(_dot_)com
<mailto:joelja(_at_)bogus(_dot_)com>> wrote:
Ops is not marketing.
And if I were looking for a marketing venue, a standards body that
produces ASCII text documents read by a handful of engineers would not
be high on my list. This is not about marketing.
Sorry for being so droll, I found it hard to restrain myself.
If you're saying some flag day makes the contents of the document no
longer operationally relevant after a given date, I'll take the point
but disagree.
I think you're missing my point.
It seems to me that approximately 30% of the non-biolerplate text in
this draft discusses DNS whitelisting. (And in fact, in its original
form the draft entirely on DNS whitelisting - hence the filename. The
rest was added later.)
Whitelisting is a practice relevant to a few large websites (since
nobody else is using it). It so happens that the websites that employ
this practice are going to stop using it, all together. Given the cost
and implications, I'd say practice is unlikely to be resurrected.
I do not belive that the selective (inclusive) return of A or A + AAAA
records on the basis of source address is likely to end on a particular
day. It may well for you and some others, which is fine, or you may find
it necessary again, or it may become a list of exclusions rather than
inclusions. I belive you're on record indicating as much. In any event
others may find it necessary.
So, you decide to tell the whole story, and talk about whitelisting
*and* World IPv6 Launch. Or you can decide that whitelisting will soon
be irrelevant, and not talk about either whitelisting or World IPv6
Launch. But you can't talk about whitelisting without talking about
World IPv6 Launch, because if you do, your document is missing the key
piece "how do you remove the whitelist", and that's a disservice to its
readers.
To be more specific, at least section 5.5 ("it is unclear
how implementers will judge when the network conditions will have
changed sufficiently to justify turning off DNS Resolver Whitelisting
and/or what the process and timing will be for discontinuing this
practice") is now incorrect. It *is* clear, and it's what those
implementers are doing as part of World IPv6 Launch.
Invidual service operators like you and I are likely to make decisions
on the basis of our instrumentation, we may well alter their behavior on
a uni or multilateral basis, and some of us may do so for world ipv6
launch. ipv4/v6 Transition is not something with a flag day however, and
I do not believe that the concerns embedded in the draft will be
fundamentally altered on 6/6/12.
Does that make more sense?
yes, that doesn't imply that we're in concert however.
Cheers,
Lorenzo
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf