IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dnsop] WGLC for draft-huston-6to4-reverse-dns-04.txt

"Olaf M. Kolkman" <olaf@nlnetlabs.nl> Sun, 02 April 2006 15:03 UTC

Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FQ47T-0004bt-CM for dnsop-archive@lists.ietf.org; Sun, 02 Apr 2006 11:03:59 -0400
Received: from mailapps.uoregon.edu ([128.223.142.45]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FQ47R-0002jX-0Y for dnsop-archive@lists.ietf.org; Sun, 02 Apr 2006 11:03:59 -0400
Received: from mailapps.uoregon.edu (IDENT:U2FsdGVkX190CeCuJ2sQwy4xqtMKjyzwFN3ALI2AeJo@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailapps.uoregon.edu (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k32EM2h7014654; Sun, 2 Apr 2006 07:22:02 -0700
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by mailapps.uoregon.edu (8.13.6/8.13.6/Submit) id k32EM2Bs014652; Sun, 2 Apr 2006 07:22:02 -0700
Received: from open.nlnetlabs.nl (open.nlnetlabs.nl [213.154.224.1]) by mailapps.uoregon.edu (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k32EM0pD014647 for <dnsop@lists.uoregon.edu>; Sun, 2 Apr 2006 07:22:00 -0700
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (open.nlnetlabs.nl [IPv6:2001:7b8:206:1::53]) by open.nlnetlabs.nl (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id k32ELuNR040789; Sun, 2 Apr 2006 16:21:57 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from olaf@NLnetLabs.nl)
In-Reply-To: <20060309193624.GF1164@unknown.office.denic.de>
References: <20060309193624.GF1164@unknown.office.denic.de>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v746.3)
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha1"; boundary="Apple-Mail-2-311798303"
Message-Id: <3F4D79F6-3A2F-4893-B705-1D86A5A58D80@NLnetLabs.nl>
Cc: IETF DNSOP WG <dnsop@lists.uoregon.edu>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: "Olaf M. Kolkman" <olaf@nlnetlabs.nl>
Subject: Re: [dnsop] WGLC for draft-huston-6to4-reverse-dns-04.txt
Date: Sun, 02 Apr 2006 12:53:58 +0200
To: Peter Koch <pk@denic.de>
X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail 1.1.1 (Tiger)
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.746.3)
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,NO_RELAYS autolearn=ham version=3.1.0
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.0 (2005-09-13) on open.nlnetlabs.nl
X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.88/1367/Sun Apr 2 03:40:41 2006 on mailapps
X-Virus-Status: Clean
Sender: owner-dnsop@lists.uoregon.edu
Precedence: bulk
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 0a7aa2e6e558383d84476dc338324fab


Dear Colleagues

I support the document. One thing one could object to this mechanism  
is the scalability properties but I find the scalability issues  
_sufficiently_ documented and the "handwaving" in section 4 is in my  
opinion appropriate.

Nit: Page 6: "incremental DNS updates [RFC2136]"
should IMHO read: "dynamic DNS updates [RFC2136]"
(avoid confusion between incremental zone transfer and dynamic DNS  
updates)


Just a comment
page 7: The statement "[reverse dns] is a questionable proposition"  
might be in conflict with another draft for this group, "in-addr- 
required". I suppose that statement can be left out and we leave that  
discussion till "in-addr required" goes into last call. I am pretty  
agnostic about this though.

--Olaf


-----------------------------------------------------------
Olaf M. Kolkman
NLnet Labs
http://www.nlnetlabs.nl/

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email