Subject: [DNSOP] AD review of draft-ietf-dnsop-isp-ip6rdns

From: Warren Kumari <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2018 17:01:30 -0400

AD Review of "Reverse DNS in IPv6 for Internet Service Providers"
(draft-ietf-dnsop-isp-ip6rdns-05)

Apologies for how long it has taken to do this review; I had a few,
primarily editorial notes on this document - while they are mainly
editorial / nits, addressing them now will prevent (well, minimize :-))
issues later in the process.

Section: Abstract

   In IPv4, Internet Service Providers (ISPs) commonly provide IN-
   ADDR.ARPA information for their customers by prepopulating the zone
   with one PTR record for every available address.  This practice does
   not scale in IPv6.  This document analyzes different approaches and
   considerations for ISPs in managing the ip6.arpa zone for IPv6
   address space assigned to many customers.

 Q1: It it intentional that IN-ADDR.ARPA is uppercase, and ip6.arpa is
lower?

 Q2: ... "managing the ip6.arpa zone for IPv6 address space assigned to
many customers."
The "assigned to many customers" bit reads oddly to me - does it add
anything? Could it just be "for their IPv6 space" instead? Or just drop the
"many"?

Section 1.1:  Reverse DNS in IPv4

"For instance, if an ISP Example.com aggregated
192.0.2.0/24 at a network hub in Town in the province of AnyWhere,
the reverse zone might look like:

   1.2.0.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA.  IN PTR 1.string.region.example.com."

Q3: Was the Town, AnyWhere bit supposed to be referenced ?  Perhaps:
1.town.anywhere.example.com?

Section 1.2.  Reverse DNS Considerations in IPv6
"Since 2^^80 possible addresses could be configured in an example
2001:db8:f00/48 zone alone, even with automation ..."

Q4: The "in an example 2001:db8:f00/48 zone" is confusing to me - this
makes it sound like the example / prefix is in some what special - this is
true for any /48. Can the prefix bit be dropped? Or this reworded?

Q5: This document uses DNSsec - I believe that the standard capitalization
is DNSSEC.

Thanks,
W

-- 
I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad idea in
the first place.
This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing
regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair of
pants.
   ---maf