Subject: [DNSOP] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc6304bis and draft-ietf-dnsop-as112-dname

From: Tim Wicinski <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 04 May 2014 13:42:51 -0400

All

These two documents have been ready for WGLC since before London (and 
probably farther back than that).   Since the revised version of 6304 
referenced the new as112-dname document, the decision was made to submit 
them both at once, and pass them along as a pair.

Reminder, in London, we were essentially told to "Ship them w/out Last 
Call. We've covered it already." I will be formal for the sake of it.

Please consider the following documents:

AS112 Nameserver Operations
	https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc6304bis/

AS112 Redirection using DNAME
	https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-as112-dname/

as being submitted together.

Since this has been discussed several times and voted on during the 
meetings, please *only* state if you think these are *not* ready for 
publication, and your reasons.

This is a 2 week Last Call period, and will end on May 18, 2014

tim wicinski

---

From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 5 May 2014 22:13:44 +0200

On Sun, May 04, 2014 at 01:42:51PM -0400,
 Tim Wicinski <[email-masked]> wrote 

> publication, and your reasons.

OK, then, I'll say nothing :-)

There are a few bugs to fix:

draft-ietf-dnsop-as112-dname-03
********************************

1)
$ORIGIN 192.IN-ADDR.ARPA.
2.0.IN-ADDR.ARPA.  IN  DNAME  EMPTY.AS112.ARPA.

The second line should begin with "2.0.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA." or "2.0"

2) 
with the lowest 48 bits set to the value 1

To be consistent with IPv4, it should be the lowest 80 bits.

Editorial:

* a more flexibl approach -> flexible

* A list of possible candidates for AS112 redirection can be found in
Section 5 -> actually, no, it has been replaced by a reference to RFC
6303

* but /48 which has been unassigned and unadvertised -> but any /48 ...

draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc6304bis-01
****************************

1) 
exercising all three AS112 anycast name server addresses.

All five (all four if you count only IPv4)

---

From: Joe Abley <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 5 May 2014 21:34:44 -0400

Hi Stephane,

> There are a few bugs to fix:

Many thanks, as usual, for picking those up. I've made changes to both documents, and will plan to submit revisions after the wglc is complete (unless Tim and Suz suggest differently).

Joe