On Mar 20, 2013, at 4:04 PM, SM <sm(_at_)resistor(_dot_)net> wrote:
I might as well comment quickly about draft-housley-rfc2050bis-00. The draft
is a good effort but it might need more work in my humble opinion.
The intended status is Informational. Is there a reason for that?
The RFC is not intended to establish anything new, only to recognize
the existing agreements and practices of the IETF in this area.
Why does the document obsolete RFC 2050? There is no explanation for that in
the Abstract or the Introduction section.
The explanation is in Section 5 (Summary of Changes Since RFC 2050);
isn't that usual practice for an RFC which replaces another in entirety?
In Section 3:
"Reverse DNS: In situations where reverse DNS was used, the
policies and practices of the Internet Numbers Registry System
have included consideration of the technical and operational
requirements posed by reverse DNS zone delegation [RFC3172]."
According to RFC 5855:
"The choice of operators for all nameservers concerned is beyond the
scope of this document and is an IANA function that falls under the
scope of Section 4 of the MoU between the IETF and ICANN [RFC2860]."
Maybe referencing RFC 5855 would be better. It may be easier not to say
anything about reverse DNS.
The text in RFC 5855 that you reference is with respect only to the
two top-level reverse domains, i.e. "all nameservers concerned" is
preceded by:
"1. IN-ADDR-SERVERS.ARPA to the nameservers listed in Section 2;
2. IP6-SERVERS.ARPA to the nameservers listed in Section 3."
"Per the delineation of responsibility for Internet address policy
issues specified in the IETF/IAB/ICANN MOU [RFC2860], discussions
regarding the evolution of the Internet Numbers Registry System
structure, policy, and processes are to take place within the ICANN
framework and will respect ICANN's core values [ICANNBL]. These core
values encourage broad, informed participation reflecting the
functional, geographic, and cultural diversity of the Internet at all
levels of policy development and decision-making, as well as the
delegation of coordination functions and recognition of the policy
roles of other responsible entities that reflect the interests of
affected parties. The discussions regarding Internet Numbers
Registry evolution must also continue to consider the overall
Internet address architecture and technical goals referenced in this
document."
Could someone please translate the above in plain English? What's the IETF
angle in all that?
It looks to be plain English to me... can you be more specific
about what part of the text which is problematic?
Why should I read RFC 6484 to understand draft-housley-rfc2050bis-00?
I believe this is a trailing reference that should be deleted at this
point.
Thanks for the comments!
/John
Disclaimers: My views alone. Use care in opening; contents may have
shifted during electronic flight.