Re: draft-ietf-dnsop-ipv6-dns-issues-04.txt [Re: [dnsop] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-dnsop-misbehavior-against-aaaa-00.txt]

["J-F C. (Jefsey) Morfin" <[e-mail]>]

Thank you for this. I just commented to help the reading.
I think you fully addressed that. Except on one point, but
I am not competent to seriously addres your question (see
below)/

At 14:23 25/03/04, Pekka Savola wrote:
>(btw, I clarified the applicability of this document by adding in the
>introduction:)
>
>         <t>The purpose of this document is to give information about
>important issues and considerations related to DNS operations with
>IPv6; it is not meant to be a normative specification or standard for
>IPv6 DNS.</t>

Thak you.

>I was not sure whether you were objecting to the contents of this
>section or not so I'm assuming you could be.. so..
>
>I think all the main arguments have been fairly portrayed (in more
>detail in other documents).  If you believe otherwise, please raise a
>specific objection.

I do not object the content. As said above. But as a reader I wish
to understand what is said to me one shot.

>Please specify the exact paragraphs and issues where you're raising a
>point, possibly giving some context, and let's see if we can flesh these
>out.  It's difficult if we don't understand each others'  comments :-)

I just commented the reading as a reader. I think you already met
most of my outsiders remarks. BTW Thank you.

>OK; I tried to fuel the thinking a bit:
>
>         <t>A problem with defining the clean-up process is that it is
>difficult to ensure that a specific IP address and the corresponding
>record are no longer being used.  Considering the huge address space,
>and the unlikelyhood of collision within 64 bits of the interface
>identifiers, a process which would remove the record after no traffic
>has been seen from a node in a period of time (e.g., a year) might be
>one possible approach.</t>

Great: I mean in term of explaining - however I am not sure it
should not call for a TTO (Time to Obsolecence) to be specified?

> > The real problem for an non specialist is to know about _all_
> > what is discussed in an IETF environment where there is no
> > state of the art/debate summary.
>
>I've tried to keep these debates out of this document (in the
>interests of not delaying it, and giving possibility to fully discuss
>it in other documents), just summarizing the situation if applicable.

Yes. What I meant was to list the points under debate. Not to
discuss them.

>When concerned, one should check the references pointed at in the
>paragraphs for more information.
>
>Of course, in some cases (e.g., this janitorial process) there has not
>been much formal work on that.  It's unfortunate, but hopefully some
>new documents, in the future could be kick-started in the future.

This is what I suggested. To explain what is concerned by the
janitorial aspects, to push for new documents. I suspect that
these janitorial/ancillary issues may be the real operational
issues?

Thank you for your understanding.
jfc

.
dnsop resources:_____________________________________________________
web user interface: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/dnsop.html
mhonarc archive: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/dnsop/index.html