Re: [Add] [EXTERNAL] Warren Kumari's Discuss on draft-ietf-add-ddr-08: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Tommy Jensen <[e-mail]>]

Hey Warren,

Thanks for the review. The good news is, there is now a PR in response to feedback from IANA for answering the questions required by section 8.1 of RFC6761 (though there's an RFC formatting error somewhere to be fixed before merging): https://github.com/ietf-wg-add/draft-ietf-add-ddr/pull/94

> ) Probably the ARPA servers don't care, but it seems impolite to not at least
> ask...

That makes perfect sense, but frankly I'm not sure how to go about doing that. Any suggestions for a first-time RFCer?

Thanks,
Tommy

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Warren Kumari via Datatracker <[e-mail]>
> Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2022 8:07 PM
> To: The IESG <[e-mail]>
> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Warren Kumari's Discuss on draft-ietf-add-ddr-08: (with
> DISCUSS and COMMENT)
> 
> Warren Kumari has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-add-ddr-08: Discuss
> 
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email
> addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory
> paragraph, however.)
> 
> 
> Please refer to
> https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ie
> tf.org%2Fabout%2Fgroups%2Fiesg%2Fstatements%2Fhandling-ballot-
> positions%2F&amp;data=05%7C01%7CJensen.Thomas%40microsoft.com%7C28
> 728891aee441ccdf7208da6545f391%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47
> %7C1%7C0%7C637933648513357075%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIj
> oiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C300
> 0%7C%7C%7C&amp;sdata=KZ2I9OUE4SAHUPwTq2dPKECquDbFk3%2Bq%2B0tP
> rlSGKXM%3D&amp;reserved=0
> for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
> 
> 
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatrac
> ker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fdraft-ietf-add-
> ddr%2F&amp;data=05%7C01%7CJensen.Thomas%40microsoft.com%7C287288
> 91aee441ccdf7208da6545f391%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1
> %7C0%7C637933648513357075%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC
> 4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7
> C%7C%7C&amp;sdata=kxygZN2cz80JWVeeStcImgPFlYNJvBq0DPZS6YkPWqo%3
> D&amp;reserved=0
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> DISCUSS:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> [ Apologies, I'm currently participating in the IEEE 802 Plenary meeting, and
> so was not able to perform as detailed (or timely!) review as normal ]
> 
> Sec 8.1 - Special Use Domain Name "resolver.arpa"
> "This document calls for the addition of "resolver.arpa" to the Special-Use
> Domain Names (SUDN) registry established by [RFC6761]."
> 
> Unfortunately RFC6761 Section 4 (Procedure) says:
> "The specification MUST state how implementations determine that the special
> handling is required for any given name." and "The specification also MUST
> state, in each of the seven "Domain Name Reservation Considerations"
> categories
> below, what special treatment, if any, is to be applied."
> 
> And RFC6761 Section 5 (Domain Name Reservation Considerations) says: "An
> IETF
> "Standards Action" or "IESG Approval" document specifying some new naming
> behaviour, which requires a Special-Use Domain Name be reserved to
> implement
> this desired new behaviour, needs to contain a subsection of the "IANA
> Considerations" section titled "Domain Name Reservation Considerations"
> giving
> answers in the seven categories listed below." (and lists the categories).
> 
> I do not see a "Domain Name Reservation Considerations" section, nor answers
> to
> the 7 questions.
> 
> [ Apologies again for not being able to do a more in-depth review ]
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Has the potential new load that this introduces on the .arpa servers been
> considered and discussed with the IANA? Yes, the document says that the name
> should also be added to the "Locally-Served DNS Zones" registry, but obviously
> that doesn't get deployed immediately (13 years after j.root-servers.net
> changed addresses, it was (and still is!) getting queries on the old address:
> https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Findico.d
> ns-
> oarc.net%2Fevent%2F24%2Fcontributions%2F378%2Fattachments%2F353%2F
> 613%2F2015-old-j-
> root.pdf&amp;data=05%7C01%7CJensen.Thomas%40microsoft.com%7C287288
> 91aee441ccdf7208da6545f391%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1
> %7C0%7C637933648513357075%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC
> 4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7
> C%7C%7C&amp;sdata=Oy0WyhblvVewr9PXKAG1IQEULrhMyJYOr%2FrnADCKRT
> k%3D&amp;reserved=0
> ) Probably the ARPA servers don't care, but it seems impolite to not at least
> ask...
> 
>