Re: [dns-dir] Review request
Olafur Gudmundsson <ogud@ogud.com> Fri, 29 March 2013 14:13 UTC
Return-Path: <ogud@ogud.com>
X-Original-To: dns-dir@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dns-dir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix)
with ESMTP id DA94421F942A for <dns-dir@ietfa.amsl.com>;
Fri, 29 Mar 2013 07:13:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5
tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com
[127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BqYHacyrkWSx for
<dns-dir@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 29 Mar 2013 07:13:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp98.ord1c.emailsrvr.com (smtp98.ord1c.emailsrvr.com
[108.166.43.98]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 34F6C21F9429 for
<dns-dir@ietf.org>; Fri, 29 Mar 2013 07:13:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by
smtp5.relay.ord1c.emailsrvr.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id A36281B00E7;
Fri, 29 Mar 2013 10:13:35 -0400 (EDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: OK
Received: by smtp5.relay.ord1c.emailsrvr.com (Authenticated sender:
ogud-AT-ogud.com) with ESMTPSA id 638EA1B009C;
Fri, 29 Mar 2013 10:13:34 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.3 \(1503\))
From: Olafur Gudmundsson <ogud@ogud.com>
In-Reply-To: <5154BDB1.6090208@innovationslab.net>
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2013 10:13:37 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <171C1602-F6CC-4A29-B5CA-EDB44B247995@ogud.com>
References: <5154BDB1.6090208@innovationslab.net>
To: Brian Haberman <brian@innovationslab.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1503)
Cc: Martin Stiemerling <martin.stiemerling@neclab.eu>,
IETF DNS Directorate <dns-dir@ietf.org>, Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
Subject: Re: [dns-dir] Review request
X-BeenThere: dns-dir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNS directorate discussion list <dns-dir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dns-dir>,
<mailto:dns-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dns-dir>
List-Post: <mailto:dns-dir@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dns-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-dir>,
<mailto:dns-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2013 14:13:37 -0000
I reviewed the document and this is a well written clear document with some deficiencies. The introduction is real good at explaining what the document is attempting. The procedure(s) proposed are based of the implicit assumption that provisioning of reverse DNS is somehow related to service provision for another protocol, which may or may not be the case. Question #1: How is dual stack handled in queries? in sequence or in parallel ? if sequence which one first ? Question #2 What about hosts with multiple links? The procedures expect hope to get back PTR records and the name in the PTR record is used for further lookups. (good) The fundamental question is are all attempts to find PTR exhausted before going to next step? Question #3: what about the case when there are multiple PTR records in the answer? If the lookup fails the procedure hopes to find SOA record in the negative answer, extracts from the SOA record the name of the "Master DNS server" MNAME, and uses that name to do further lookups. Comment #1: Master DNS servers are not always reachable, as they are hidden masters or traffic protected. Frequently there is no correlation between the zone name and the Mname I did a randomly selected reverse lookup on 185.55.55.55 185.in-addr.arpa. 3600 IN SOA pri.authdns.ripe.net. dns.ripe.net. ……. In this case it is obvious (to a human) the SOA is useless and the algorithm should terminate, what the procedure as specified will do is to cause many queries to the RIR name servers for lots of names that have no PTR records and no delegations. Question #4: Why MNAME but not the owner name of the SOA ? (explain or point to explanation) Question #5: What is the point of the explicit SOA query for reverse name and why do editors expect to get a different answer than in the PTR question ? Section #4: there is no mention about the expected extra traffic to RIR (and or ISP) DNS server when the PTR lookup fails, I would like to see some text on how to abort the algorithms early I.e. SOA present --- useful SOA ---> do lookup +-------- useless SOA ---> algorithm failed This boat has probably sailed but I will ask it anyway: Question #6 Why not place the NAPTR records in the reverse tree? Editing comment: It would be helpful if the text from section 3 bullet 1 about what address to look up was included in section 2 before the diagrams of the algorithms (or at least pointer to address selection). Olafur On Mar 28, 2013, at 6:01 PM, Brian Haberman <brian@innovationslab.net> wrote: > Hi all, > The ALTO WG is considering the adoption of a draft focused on the discovery of an ALTO server using DNS (but not SRV records). Martin (TSV AD) has requested an early DNS Directorate review. Could I get a volunteer (or two) to review the draft for DNS sanity? > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-kist-alto-3pdisc/ > > Regards, > Brian > _______________________________________________ > dns-dir mailing list > dns-dir@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-dir
- [dns-dir] Review request Brian Haberman
- Re: [dns-dir] Review request Olafur Gudmundsson
- Re: [dns-dir] Review request Martin Stiemerling
- Re: [dns-dir] Fwd: Re: Review request Sebastian Kiesel
- Re: [dns-dir] Fwd: Re: Review request Martin Stiemerling
- Re: [dns-dir] Review request Olafur Gudmundsson