Subject: [DNSOP] Updates to AS 112 WG drafts

From: "William F. Maton Sotomayor" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2009 17:45:54 -0400 (EDT)

All,

 	After somewhat of a longer hiatus on Peter's part (the WG last 
call on one document seems to have drifted by and then dropped) and my part 
(largely to do with increased workload), I have finally put together new 
versions of each draft.

 	The proceeding is based on some correspondence between the ID 
authors and Peter relating to some issues that were left on the burner, so 
I wanted to summarize them here to add context.

 	Many suggestions by volunteer reviewers had been incorporated 
into the help-help draft (and to a lesser extent the -ops draft) for 
revision 01 of each document.  However, discussion traffic faded after 
their release.

 	One comment on -help-help had been raised by Olafur, located here:

http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsop/current/msg05601.html

None of the versions of this draft address his comment, nor was there 
any discernable (at least in the archives) comment made on it by others 
on the WG list.  I wanted to remind people about this one and see if the 
silence meant that there wasn't an issue after all.

Next, there seemed to be no opposition in the working group meeting from 
March 2007 to have both of these go to WGLC:

http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/07mar/minutes/dnsop.txt

In the successive meeting, it looks like -help-help made it to WGLC:

http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/07jul/minutes/dnsop.txt

Then there's the issue of IPv6 transport which seems to be heading towards
a separate draft.  (I haven't asked about what happened to the LOA
discussions for AS112, but that's off topic to this email.)

In the Vancouver 2007 IETF, the -01 submissions were recognized:

http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/07dec/minutes/dnsop.txt

Anyways, the review trail picks up after that:
-Mohsen Souissi pointed out Mark Andrews' draft on local zones was renamed.
-Stephane Bortzmeyer was very keen that these drafts stated that we were
   documenting current practices.  I think the intention was to leave the door
   wide open for a future ID on AS112 operations, aimed at addressing
   outstanding issues (maybe adding zones, IPv6 transport, DNSSEC, etc).
-Stephane points out that there is no AS112 NOC contact in -help-help
   (http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsop/current/msg06006.html)
-Andrew Sullivan around the same time made some additional comments on -ops:
   (http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsop/current/msg05973.html)

Then it stops cold.

Peter Koch then provided some very useful comments on -help-help-01. 
These are now rolled into 02.

Otherwise the -02 versions have taken the above into account.

Thanks,

wfms

---

From: Chris Thompson <[email-masked]>
Date: 12 Mar 2009 17:28:56 +0000

Nit in draft-ietf-dnsop-as112-ops-02 - Section 2.2:

   The zones listed in Section 2.1 are delegated to the two nameservers
   BLACKHOLE-1.IANA.ORG (192.175.48.6) and BLACKHOLE-2.IANA.ORG
   (192.175.48.6).

Second address should be 192.175.48.42. No big deal except that the 
current text raises eyebrows: "what, they have the *same* IP address?".

Other occurrences of the IP addresses seem to be OK.

-- 
Chris Thompson
Email: [email-masked]

---

From: Chris Thompson <[email-masked]>
Date: 12 Mar 2009 19:23:29 +0000

Another (sorry!) nit in draft-ietf-dnsop-as112-ops-02:

There are inconsistencies in which of these two URLs is the preferred
one to be put in the informational TXT records:

   http://as112.net/
   http://www.as112.net/

In fact, as the DNS is at the moment, the first works only by virtue
of browser guesswork (there is no address record for as112.net).

Not that I can get any response out of www.as112.net = 204.152.184.180
at the moment, either ... :-(

-- 
Chris Thompson
Email: [email-masked]