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

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 21:33:32 +0200 (EET)

On Fri, 21 Nov 2003, Rob Austein wrote:
> 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).

I believe the document should be published as BCP soon.  It may need a
revision yet.

As for the comments the others have made, I have no objection to
raising the recommendation from one v4 DNS server to two; however, I
don't believe this is necessary.  These are supposed to be MINIMUM
requirements.  It apparently isn't sufficiently clear that it makes a
lot of sense to have all of them v4-capable, and with *robust*
connectivity.

Major issues:

None.

Nits:

   unfragmented IPv4 name space and there are strong reasons to find a
   mechanism to avoid it.
==> s/to find a mechanism// (or reword 'mechanism' to something more 
generic, like 'method')

   The RECOMMENDED guidelines are compatible with the operation of
==> s/RECOMMENDED/recommended/ (uppercase seems inappropriate here)

6. Author Addresses
==> s/Author/Authors'/

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings

.
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: Fri, 05 Dec 2003 09:43:11 +0900

Pekka;
 
> requirements.

My concern is that, if it is one, it is inconsistent with the current
MINIMUM requriements.

							Masataka Ohta

.

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2003 09:03:37 +0200 (EET)

> My concern is that, if it is one, it is inconsistent with the current

Could you elaborate which current minimum requirements you refer to?

.

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2003 13:03:56 +0200 (EET)

On Fri, 5 Dec 2003, Masataka Ohta wrote:
> RFC 1034. PERIOD.

Could you be a bit more constructive?

I guess you refer to:

A given zone will be available from several name servers to insure its
availability in spite of host or communication link failure.  By
administrative fiat, we require every zone to be available on at least
two servers, and many zones have more redundancy than that.

.. but NOTHING requires these two servers be available using the same
IP transport.  You could add one as v4-only and one as v6-only and
fulfill the criteria.  That would be pretty stupid, of course, but I
don't think there's text in RFC1034 which applies here..

.

---

From: Masataka Ohta <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2003 20:02:39 +0900

Pekka Savola;

RFC 1034. PERIOD.

.

---

From: Masataka Ohta <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2003 20:20:18 +0900

Pekka Savola;

> IP transport.

Feel free to use CLNP, IPv5, IPv8 or whatever.

I prefer to be more constructive, though.

.

---

From: Peter Koch <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2003 20:25:30 +0100

> don't think there's text in RFC1034 which applies here..

Following it by the letter, maybe. Following by the spirit, keeping a mimimum
of two seems reasonable for at least quite some time.
Also, I'd not like to see this document as a base for registrants arguing that
the "two servers rule" had been abandoned.

-Peter
.