ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

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

2014-05-29 16:12:03
Hi

On 29/05/2014 17:41, manning bill wrote:
apparently there is not “enough consensus”, since several roots don’t have 
published v6 addresses.
there -might- be rough consensus in a narrow slice of the technical community 
that has an axe to grind.
end of the day, the IETF has no say on how people operate their 
networks/services.

I meant consensus here, not in the root server operator community.

I believe that there is a limit on the argument of operational
independence. If you agree to provide a service the whole Internet
depends on, well, it's reasonable that you need to comply with certain
requirements.

If an operator can't / won't comply with the requirements set by the
IETF, they can ask to be relieved of their duty.


if you think it should, i’d like to see a resolution of the DMARC deployment 
that requires all SMTP
servers to require, per IETF mandate to support DMARC.

Engineering is not Operations.   This is not the IOTF.

DMARC/mailing lists are hardly critical infrastructure. This is not even
remotely comparable to the root server issue in terms of impact.


/bill

~Carlos
Neca eos omnes.  Deus suos agnoscet.

On 29May2014Thursday, at 13:18, Carlos M. Martinez 
<carlosm3011(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> wrote:

I think there is enough consensus saying that root server operators MUST
support IPv6. I think it's hard to argue that the Internet needs this to
move to IPv6, as otherwise we'll be saying that it'll be ok for future
networks to not be able to access some root servers, or putting the
burden of supporting all IPv6 on a subset of root servers.

If you add that not all root server operators offer anycast copies, or
do it in a limited way, well, we could be putting the IPv6 internet in a
fragile position.

IMO, setting this requirement is well within the core competencies of
the IETF.

Then comes the question what to do (if anything) with those root server
operators who chose to ignore this MUST.

IMO, This is probably outside the IETF's sphere, and it should be
possible to even say so in the proposed document.

cheers!

~Carlos

On 29/05/2014 05:24, Jari Arkko wrote:

I would like every A-M.root-servers.net have an A and AAAA record.

I don't care how the root-server operators decide to partition to workload
among hardware.

Yes, that is my view as well.

Over time we will need more v6 responders and fewer v4
responders.
I don't think that there is, or should be, any requirement that v4 and v6 
be
answered by the same system, and given anycast, they might even be in
different locations.

I think that the current text captures this just fine:

Agreed.

Jari




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