ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Last Call: <draft-jabley-dnsext-eui48-eui64-rrtypes-03.txt> (Resource R ecords for EUI-48 and EUI-64 Addresses in the DNS) to Proposed Standard

2013-05-29 11:54:24
On May 29, 2013, at 12:36 PM, John C Klensin <john-ietf(_at_)jck(_dot_)com> 
wrote:
If I had been able to figure
out what else to say that would be stronger, constructive, and
not stray into Applicability Statement territory, I would have,
so I'm out of ideas and it is possible that Joe is too.

Even if you don't have an applicability statement, I don't think it's 
inappropriate to talk about the context in which the documented protocol is 
intended to be useful, nor to talk about contexts in which it wouldn't be 
appropriate.   The document currently is far too restrained in this regard, 
IMHO.   I would add some text to the introduction, like this:

The DNS Resource Records described in this document have significant privacy 
implications (see section 8).   They were developed with the intention to use 
them in [scenario a] or [scenario b] and are likely not to be appropriate in 
other scenarios.   In particular, they are unlikely to be appropriate for use 
in DNS zones hosted on globally-reachable servers that will answer any query 
without any access control mechanism.

I realize this looks a lot like an applicability statement, but the problem 
with putting an applicability statement in an Informational document is that 
informational documents are never applicable in the sense of being the standard 
the IETF recommends to use in a specific case.   As long as you stay away from 
_recommending_ the use of this specification, I think it's okay to say where 
its use was envisioned.   Although of course if it was envisioned to be used on 
the public internet, that wouldn't help.


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>