ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Last Call: <draft-iab-2870bis-01.txt> (DNS Root Name Service Protocol and Deployment Requirements) to Best Current Practice

2014-05-22 14:05:03
Hi Joe,
At 09:34 22-05-2014, Joe Abley wrote:
Some reaction to your comments below, plus a comment of my own. I'll note that I am not a root server operator, although in the past I have played one on TV. My comments on your

Ok. :-)

I understand that RSSAC have made recent progress on that document, and that it will appear soon. I would presume that the RFC Editor would hold final publication of this document, once approved, until that reference showed up, as is the case for references to IETF documents. I don't know whether that's a good presumption though. I just thought I'd mention it as a plausible workflow.

I would usually be okay with the workflow. The referenced document is currently a forward-looking statement. I suggest delaying the IESG approval until that document is available or else changing the text in the draft to reflect the current state of affairs.

At any time many parts of the Internet are unreachable from other parts of the Internet, for many reasons unrelated to specifications (national issues, cable breaks, failures in particular networks, peering disputes, etc.)

I'll note that the document describes requirements for the *service*, not for any particular component of the service.

Yes.

So I think this concern is orthogonal to the purpose and contents of this document.

I mentioned this as long-running problems provides material for non-technical arguments.

I actually think that it makes sense to separate the requirements for the root name *service* from the contents of the root zone that is being served. The document requires the service to support DNSSEC (which I think is right and proper), and has nothing to say about the contents of the root zone (which again, I think is right and proper).

Section 3 broaches the topic of "contents of the Root Zone". I read some past comments from the IAB about DNSSEC. The terms used were "implementation" and "deployment". It looks like the requirement fits in this draft.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>