Re: [DNSOP] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-gersch-dnsop-revdns-cidr-00.txt

["Marc Lampo" <[e-mail]>]

Hello,

(sorry – previously sent email was not finished …)

Some “typographic” remarks :
1) 5.2 IPv4 Address Block Naming → IPv6 Address Block Naming
2) In 5.2 there are 2 examples that have missing “::”,
(2607:fa88:8000:/33 → 2607:fa88:8000::/33 and
2607:fa88:8000:/35 → 2607:fa88:8000::/35)
in 5.3 there is 1 example with missing “::”.
(2607:fa88:8000:/36 → 2607:fa88:8000::/36)

About “content” :
1) 3. Design Requirement → 2. Coverage Authority.
“Any … with a data record or NXDOMAIN …”
to be completed with : NODATA
→ “Any … with a data record or NODATA or NXDOMAIN …”

2) In 5.2 IPv6 Address Block Naming
Why not add some examples to show conversion from a reverse-DNS name back to 
CIDR ?
(just like in 5.1)

Globally :
1) It is implied by the content of the present draft,
but should it be stated (in Design Requirements)
that the proposal should be valid for both IPv4 and IPv6 addresses ?

2) In the Introduction, where you correctly state that ISP’s pre-populate 
reverse DNS,
the problem is stated that the approach of pre-populating does not scale for 
IPv6.
However, by itself, this draft does not solve that problem, does it ?
(needs programmatic support)
(this example in the Introduction made me think/assume that this draft
 also applies to “simple” reverse mapping.  In which case I wondered how
 this draft does away with CNAME (a la RFC 2317).
 But then, after rereading it occurred to me that this draft is about 
storing
 CIDR info in revdns.
 → isn’t it confusing to give, in the intro, an example that does not apply 
to CIDR info ?
(it got at least me confused, not that I’d want to be taken as a reference 
;-)

Kind regards,

Marc Lampo
Security Officer
EURid


From: Joseph Gersch [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: 17 February 2012 06:17 PM
To: [e-mail]
Subject: [DNSOP] Fwd: New Version Notification for 
draft-gersch-dnsop-revdns-cidr-00.txt

All,
  we have submitted a new draft that will be presented at the Paris IETF 
meeting.
Please take the time to send any comments and suggestions regarding this 
idea on naming CIDR address blocks in the Reverse DNS.

Best regards,
   - Joe Gersch and Dan Massey


Begin forwarded message:


From: [e-mail]
Date: February 16, 2012 5:09:18 PM MST
To: [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail], [e-mail]
Subject: New Version Notification for draft-gersch-dnsop-revdns-cidr-00.txt

A new version of I-D, draft-gersch-dnsop-revdns-cidr-00.txt has been 
successfully submitted by Joe Gersch and posted to the IETF repository.

Filename:	 draft-gersch-dnsop-revdns-cidr
Revision:	 00
Title:		 Reverse DNS Naming Convention for CIDR Address Blocks
Creation date:	 2012-02-14
WG ID:		 Individual Submission
Number of pages: 19

Abstract:
  The current reverse DNS naming method is used to specify a complete
  IP address.  It has not been used to handle address ranges; for
  example, there is no formal mechanism for specifying 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.  These include applications
  for secure BGP routing, and applications that need host-information
  for a device owning a complete IPv6 address block.  This draft
  proposes a naming convention for encoding CIDR address blocks in the
  reverse DNS.




The IETF Secretariat

Joseph Gersch
Chief Operating Officer
Secure64 Software Corporation