Re: [apps-review] Review of: draft-ietf-v6ops-v6-aaaa-whitelisting-implications-03 *(formal for apps area)*

Dave CROCKER <dhc@dcrocker.net> Mon, 09 May 2011 21:43 UTC

Return-Path: <dhc@dcrocker.net>
X-Original-To: apps-review@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-review@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 17799E06F2 for <apps-review@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 May 2011 14:43:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CR67buOzsQLO for <apps-review@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 May 2011 14:43:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3631BE06CF for <apps-review@ietf.org>; Mon, 9 May 2011 14:43:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.43.47] (m490536d0.tmodns.net [208.54.5.73]) (authenticated bits=0) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p49K00U9021988 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 9 May 2011 13:00:08 -0700
Message-ID: <4DC847B5.5070106@dcrocker.net>
Date: Mon, 09 May 2011 12:59:49 -0700
From: Dave CROCKER <dhc@dcrocker.net>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110414 Thunderbird/3.1.10
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: SM <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
References: <4DC821FB.2050904@dcrocker.net> <6.2.5.6.2.20110509122236.04871058@elandnews.com>
In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20110509122236.04871058@elandnews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]); Mon, 09 May 2011 13:00:09 -0700 (PDT)
Cc: dcrocker@bbiw.net, Apps Review <apps-review@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [apps-review] Review of: draft-ietf-v6ops-v6-aaaa-whitelisting-implications-03 *(formal for apps area)*
X-BeenThere: apps-review@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
List-Id: Apps Area Review List <apps-review.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/apps-review>, <mailto:apps-review-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-review>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-review@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-review-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-review>, <mailto:apps-review-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 09 May 2011 21:43:50 -0000

On 5/9/2011 12:44 PM, SM wrote:
> Hi Dave,
> At 10:18 09-05-2011, Dave CROCKER wrote:
>> (This is an "official" and significantly extended version of an informal and
>> narrow review I posted earlier. /d)
>
> Thanks for doing the review.
>
> I didn't notice any recommendation about whether the draft should be published
> or not. Out of curiosity, what would you recommend?

The paper needs quite a bit of work.  I believe it all falls into the category 
of "cleanup" rather than "re-thinking", but doing the cleanup might uncover some 
issues that fall into the latter category.

That said, the paper appears to be documenting existing practice, in addition to 
exploring 'enhancements' and implications, and it's always good to publish such 
things.

d/
-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net