ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

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

2015-02-17 16:43:05
Hello,
 Many LC comments were about the stale reference to RSSAC001. This RSSAC001 has 
been posted in december, which shall solve many issues raised.  Moreover, a new 
version of the draft (-02) http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-iab-2870bis/  
has been posted based on the comments. Below is a summary of LC comments and 
actions taken.

Regards, Marc.

http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-iab-2870bis-02.txt 
<http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-iab-2870bis-02.txt>

Marc.

=====
Summary of IETF LC comments on draft-iab-2870bis

A) mainly 2 individuals do not agree with the document approach, such as:
- IETF should not specify what root servers do
- should not be a BCP
- should not be split into 2 documents
- should only put historic to 2870bis
However, 6 individuals responded to those comments with supporting the document 
and its approach.
We still believe that this document is the right approach and have achieve 
rough concensus.

B) Comment: RFC2119 language is not appropriate for a BCP.  We believe that, 
while not a protocol specification, it provides recommendations to an 
implementation of the root service therefore we think it is appropriate to use 
this language.

C) Comment: Add text on fragmentation and MTU. We believe that this is more of 
operational nature and therefore should not be part of this document.

D)  Some noted that some root servers are not supporting IPv6 at the moment. We 
note that we are not talking about specific root servers but the root service. 
Some followup comments have replied to that effect. Therefore, we think this is 
ok as it is.

E) Comment: .arpa is not really part of the root zone. Moreover, the MAY does 
not do anything. We agree and removed that requirement.

F) some (non-substantive) text fixes were suggested that we agreed and 
implemented in the new version of the document.

G) a suggestion to add that  "IANA has a responsibility to publish [ROOTZONE], 
update the root hints, and ensure the root zone trust anchor is published ». We 
agree on the idea, but believe this is more on IANA role than root service and 
therefore enlarge the intended scope of the document, therefore we did not 
change the document, unless the AD thinks we should.

H) a suggestion to state that a root service may not answer queries in the 
presence of operational events such as DDOS or else.  We agree on the idea, 
however, we believe this is an example of operational issues that should not be 
discussed in this document, since it would require all kind of operational 
qualifications and text..

I) Many comments were reflecting the absence of RSSAC001 publication at the 
time of the IETF LC. The RSSAC01 document has now been published by RSSAC and 
it has a stable reference. The reference has been updated accordingly in the 
document. This should solve those many comments.


Le 2014-05-20 à 16:42, The IESG <iesg-secretary(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org> a écrit :


The IESG has received a request from the Internet Architecture Board 
(iab) to consider the following document:

- 'DNS Root Name Service Protocol and Deployment Requirements'
 <draft-iab-2870bis-01.txt> as Best Current Practice

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org mailing lists by 2014-06-20. Exceptionally, comments 
may be
sent to iesg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract

  The DNS Root Name service is a critical part of the Internet
  architecture.  The protocol and deployment requirements expected to
  be implemented for the DNS root name service are defined in this
  document.  Operational requirements are out of scope.


The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-iab-2870bis/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-iab-2870bis/ballot/


No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

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