Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-fanf-dnsop-rfc2317bis

神明達哉 <jinmei@wide.ad.jp> Tue, 12 January 2016 23:40 UTC

Return-Path: <jinmei.tatuya@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A3D821A906D for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Jan 2016 15:40:39 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.378
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.378 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_71=0.6, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RrGgr0Y9HmKi for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Jan 2016 15:40:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-io0-x22c.google.com (mail-io0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c06::22c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4C9FE1A9054 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 12 Jan 2016 15:40:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-io0-x22c.google.com with SMTP id q21so401045184iod.0 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 12 Jan 2016 15:40:38 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=lJdPhaFfszz9/zjZfpKRDkfOGfIPlTZLBMYO5etrem0=; b=B3RMdXHA50UBiJldoIdoxpkgmbXRGUtHyYC0FzlmVHpOFw/AjlQ9FI1605ik0tE1c5 QKytu8vxZ7NG3z8HamDcz+Y3IeMfGl38cyusjtI8fECss5HZYeDkjgZoYYX17hZ/HJl5 I1hZ1KeeugYTyyZfta32GJev70A1dvgNZfRYw9vtZfX9oR0JSHxg2T+9G0Pe+0vvMS4+ 4Af56BBtMo0XV72/DsgUn9Cf2S+TkKTD8VACt3xu7fpREu98SmNB4Ol2mlKI4VCIN33s ne9ehrcj11ye4SBpWaDIfcdhOaPi6MfhwcawM7EKHWHGdbfPMyEWGNEdJNqE8LBnzQbH LMQw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.107.137.151 with SMTP id t23mr99332919ioi.172.1452642037646; Tue, 12 Jan 2016 15:40:37 -0800 (PST)
Sender: jinmei.tatuya@gmail.com
Received: by 10.107.129.80 with HTTP; Tue, 12 Jan 2016 15:40:37 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <566E329D.7010007@gmail.com>
References: <566E329D.7010007@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2016 15:40:37 -0800
X-Google-Sender-Auth: Uuhwq0tL3SGDppMMQQ0xS4tETL0
Message-ID: <CAJE_bqeR5nVGOnLWQ3CzWKR86===VoXWNsqyas3yJEG5zX2n=Q@mail.gmail.com>
From: 神明達哉 <jinmei@wide.ad.jp>
To: Tim Wicinski <tjw.ietf@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/Vb925RW5e2iNVBKBOJTHbUB2HnM>
Cc: dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-fanf-dnsop-rfc2317bis
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Tue, 12 Jan 2016 23:40:39 -0000

At Sun, 13 Dec 2015 22:08:13 -0500,
Tim Wicinski <tjw.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:

> This starts a Call for Adoption for draft-fanf-dnsop-rfc2317bis
>
> The draft is available here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-fanf-dnsop-rfc2317bis/
>
> Please review this draft to see if you think it is suitable for adoption
> by DNSOP, and comments to the list, clearly stating your view.   Since
> it's updating a prior document, we should discuss whether it's a
> significant update.
>
> Please also indicate if you are willing to contribute text, review, etc.
>
> Since this Call for Adoption is around the holiday season, I will run
> this a bit longer.
>
> This call for adoption ends midnight 31 December 2015 UTC.

It's already in 2016 but I don't think I've seen a conclusion
announcement of the call, so: I support the adoption of this
document.  I'm also willing to review subsequent versions.

Some initial, mostly minor comments on the current version:m

- I wonder why its intended status is standards track.  It generally
  just talks about operational techniques rather than describe some
  new protocol, so a BCP seems to be more appropriate (in fact RFC2317
  is a BCP).  Perhaps it's because this document will "update" RFC2136?
  I'm not necessarily opposed to it, but just curious.

- Section 7.5: s/will be still be/will still be/

   transaction (though this benefit should not be exaggerated: the
   records will be still be cached separately and will time out
   independently).  Do however note that the resolver's traversal via

- Section 8

   Similarly, for its IPv6 network 2001:db8:A::/48, organization A again
   asks for a DNAME record, like this:

  I'm not sure why 'a' in '2001:db8:A::' is upper-cased, but if
  there's not a strong reason for it I'd consider lower-casing it,
  applying the recommendation of RFC5952 (whose primary target is not
  literature like I-Ds or RFCs, but I think it's generally better to
  have consistent view in various textual representations of IPv6
  addresses).

--
JINMEI, Tatuya