[DNSOP] FW: New Version Notification for draft-gersch-dnsop-revdns-cidr-02.txt
"Joe Gersch" <joe.gersch@secure64.com> Wed, 02 May 2012 16:24 UTC
Return-Path: <joe.gersch@secure64.com>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE39921E803C for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 May 2012 09:24:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.494
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.494 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RDNS_NONE=0.1]
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 ZKMZHfTB2pSG for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 May 2012 09:24:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from zimbra.secure64.com (unknown [64.92.221.189]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 04DC821E801E for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Wed, 2 May 2012 09:24:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by zimbra.secure64.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE3FCB8504 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Wed, 2 May 2012 10:24:39 -0600 (MDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at secure64.com
Received: from zimbra.secure64.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (zimbra.secure64.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id W6V8eVh1JDJt; Wed, 2 May 2012 10:24:39 -0600 (MDT)
Received: from exchange.secure64.com (exchange.secure64.com [192.168.254.250]) by zimbra.secure64.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C3253B84D6 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Wed, 2 May 2012 10:24:38 -0600 (MDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=secure64.com; s=2010; t=1335975878; bh=cDUfsB9PCJRGvcKRSu5MpoTg2LzvBLxeVnE7aQkyq+w=; h=Subject:Date:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Message-ID:References:From: To; b=UnTPdMtKbDKg36J2AYnANd+hVLua1jGDpKfR6auSP1Oi/LvFdJfp60rSj2fG pR8lIN/EZHllKMbohnjTl9K5TyyV+TujBCxblhPhFh0GktvCmVKSOoTjarK2Qvispes +pdA7hEPlcG26Q8kRgenSSuYE37bV4IS0pPfiJEoYksQ=
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
Date: Wed, 02 May 2012 10:22:18 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01CD287F.BE681624"
Message-ID: <DD056A31A84CFC4AB501BD56D1E14BBBD6FACE@exchange.secure64.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Thread-Topic: New Version Notification for draft-gersch-dnsop-revdns-cidr-02.txt
Thread-Index: Ac0ofrohQ8nytccbQJqPeGGkn7TO4AAADCY3
References: <20120502161713.4352.16872.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
From: Joe Gersch <joe.gersch@secure64.com>
To: dnsop@ietf.org
Subject: [DNSOP] FW: New Version Notification for draft-gersch-dnsop-revdns-cidr-02.txt
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <dnsop.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsop>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsop@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 02 May 2012 16:24:42 -0000
DNSOP reviewers, We have submitted a new revision of draft-gersch-dnsop-revdns-cidr which defines a method for naming CIDR address blocks in the reverse DNS. This revision addresses the concerns and suggestions raised at the IETF Paris meeting and from the mailing list. In particular (from the change log): Changes from version 01 to 02 Concerns were raised at the IETF 83 meeting that the document appeared to specific to the routing application. Several other applications were mentioned. We clarified the introduction to show that the naming convention is application agnostic. Expanded the related work discussion to include RFC 1101. The "m" label is now added even when on an octet boundary. Moved all other discussion into the Additional Considerations section; removing the alternate naming and replacing it with a discussion of existing delegations, adding a section on separating prefix and PTR records, added a section on enumerating prefixes and finding longest matches. All these changes reflect comments from the mailing list, IETF 83 discussions, and other comments. They do not change the naming scheme itself. To emphasize the approach is application agnostic, the appendix examples were changed from using routing security records to LOC records. Any record type could be used, but LOC records were chosen as they were viewed as easy to understand. Thank you for your comments and ideas, - Joe Gersch, Dan Massey and Eric Osterweil -----Original Message----- From: internet-drafts@ietf.org [mailto:internet-drafts@ietf.org] Sent: Wed 5/2/2012 10:17 AM To: Joe Gersch Cc: eosterweil@verisign.com; massey@cs.colostate.edu Subject: New Version Notification for draft-gersch-dnsop-revdns-cidr-02.txt A new version of I-D, draft-gersch-dnsop-revdns-cidr-02.txt has been successfully submitted by Joe Gersch and posted to the IETF repository. Filename: draft-gersch-dnsop-revdns-cidr Revision: 02 Title: Reverse DNS Naming Convention for CIDR Address Blocks Creation date: 2012-05-01 WG ID: Individual Submission Number of pages: 24 Abstract: The reverse DNS naming method is used to specify a complete IP address. At present there is no standard way for the reverse DNS to handle address ranges. As an example, there is no formal mechanism to define a reverse DNS name for the block of addresses specified by the IPv4 prefix 129.82.0.0/16. Defining such a reverse DNS naming convention would be useful for a number of applications. This draft proposes a naming convention for encoding CIDR address blocks into the reverse DNS namespace. The IETF Secretariat