Subject: [dnsop] WGLC on draft-ietf-dnsop-ipv6-transport-guidelines-01.txt

From: Rob Austein <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2003 12:25:32 -0500

This is a working group last call on the IPv6 transport guidelines
document, draft-ietf-dnsop-ipv6-transport-guidelines-01.txt, which we
hope to submit to the IESG for consideration as a BCP document.

This last call will terminate at 17:00 UTC on 5 December 2003.

Please clearly state to the mailing list whether you support or oppose
this draft going to the IESG.

Please do not express an opinion if you have not read the draft.

As always, please discuss substantive issues on the WG mailing list.
Minor editorial comments may be sent directly to the draft authors
(please CC the WG chairs on any such comments so that we can track
this).

Thanks,

Rob & Dave
.
dnsop resources:_____________________________________________________
web user interface: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/dnsop.html
mhonarc archive: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/dnsop/index.html

---

From: Masataka Ohta <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 22 Nov 2003 18:34:33 +0900

Rob Austein;

> this draft going to the IESG.

The draft says:

      - every single DNS zone SHOULD be served by at least one IPv4
      reachable DNS server.

and

   In order to help enforcing the second point, the optional operational
   zone validation processes SHOULD ensure that there is at least one
   IPv4 address record available for the name servers of any child
   delegations within the zone.

The former means,

	at least one name server of a zone should have at least one
	IPv4 address

and the latter, I think, means

	all the name server of a zone should have at least one IPv4
	address

which is a contradition.

Moreover, if the latter validation process is enforced upon name
server registration to a parent zone, it makes the process
purposelessly complex, because if, there is no glue A, a non-glue
A should be presented to the parent zone administrator during
the process, which does not ensure that the child zone name server
actually use the A RR.

Finally, I think a reasonable requirement should be

	at least two name servers of a zone should have at least
	one IPv4 address

Otherwise, the draft loosen the current requirement for zones
served by pure IPv4 name servers.

						Masataka Ohta

.

---

From: Måns Nilsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2003 14:49:40 +0100

> this draft going to the IESG.

Masataka Ohta did express some (IMHO minor, but worth considering) issues.
It might be wise to work a bit  the wording, and adjust the amount
of nameservers recommended (ie. bump from one to two).
 
Other than that, I support the draft submission. 

-- 
Måns Nilsson		Systems Specialist
+46 70 681 7204		KTHNOC
			MN1334-RIPE

Where's th' DAFFY DUCK EXHIBIT??