Subject: Re: [DNSOP] draft-howard-isp-ip6rdns-07.txt

From: Stephan Lagerholm <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2015 00:35:32 +0200 (CEST)

Hi Lee Howard,

Here are my comments on the draft:

Section 1. What exactly is the reference to [RFC1033] for? I can't see any
of the text in this sentence in RFC1033.

Section 1.2 I don't see prefix delegation being mentioned in this
section and I think it should. If an ISP (perhaps wireless) just handed
out 1 IPv6 address per subscriber the problem would be no worse than with
IPv4 and the plain old $GENERATE technique would still work.

Section 1.2 I agree with John Levine's comment that 'manual zone entry is
cumbersome in IPv6' is an interesting observation but not necessarily
applicable to the problem this draft addresses.

Section 1.2 talks about the 'host portion' of the address. This would be
more accurately referred to as the Interface Identifier (RFC 4291 section
2.5.1)

Section 1.2
'DNS administrators of residential ISPs should consider how to follow this
advice for AAAA and PTR RRs in the residential ISP.'
This sentence is not clear.

Section 2.1 is confusing because it says that providing a negative
response does not satisfy RFC1912 but then the next sentence goes on and
say that even an NXDOMAIN will give the best user experience. Are you
mixing two problems here?

Section 2.3 'Dynamic DNS may not scale effectively in large ISP networks
which have no single master name server, but a single master server is not
best practice'
This sentence is not clear too many no/not.

Section 2.3.1
Once it learns its address, and has a resolving name server, the host
   must perform an SOA lookup on the ip6.arpa record to be added, to
   find the owner, which will lead to the SOA record.

This sentence is not clear. What owner are we talking about? MNAME field
in SOA?

Section 2.3.2
relay dynamic DNS updates from hosts to the servers and domain provided by
the ISP.  Host behavior is unchanged; they should provide updates to the
ISP's servers as described above.

If the host behavior is unchanged, then what is the gateway relaying?

Section 2.3.3
An ISP may elect to provide authoritative responses as a secondary
   server to the customer's primary server.  For instance, the home
   gateway name server could be the master server, with the ISP
   providing the only published NS authoritative servers.

primary/secondary setup for home gateways are not relevant to the draft, I
suggest this section/sentence is removed or reworked.

Section 3 fails to mention traceroute that I feel is one of the most
important application that takes advantage of reverse DNS.

Typo: administrator will then neet to consider. NEED

Section 5, my first name is misspelled.

Thanks, Stephan