Re: Last Call: <draft-iab-2870bis-01.txt> (DNS Root Name Service Protocol and Deployment Requirements) to Best Current Practice

manning bill <bmanning@isi.edu> Thu, 29 May 2014 20:43 UTC

Return-Path: <bmanning@isi.edu>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D9A01A068A for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 May 2014 13:43:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.851
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.851 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651] autolearn=ham
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 lVypW7nNzbRa for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 May 2014 13:43:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from vapor.isi.edu (vapor.isi.edu [128.9.64.64]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CB7281A00EA for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 May 2014 13:43:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.0.2] (cpe-23-241-118-60.socal.res.rr.com [23.241.118.60]) (authenticated bits=0) by vapor.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id s4TKfwgN005247 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Thu, 29 May 2014 13:42:08 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-iab-2870bis-01.txt> (DNS Root Name Service Protocol and Deployment Requirements) to Best Current Practice
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.2\))
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
From: manning bill <bmanning@isi.edu>
In-Reply-To: <538795FB.6060205@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 29 May 2014 13:41:58 -0700
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <4F62CE0A-114F-4285-B332-9D9EB2B38B42@isi.edu>
References: <20140520204238.21772.64347.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20140521194638.06eaf508@resistor.net> <1111FB79-012A-414B-B8CD-0BBDAE8BD6A8@hopcount.ca> <6.2.5.6.2.20140522095317.0c5fd648@elandnews.com> <5C02BCCA-79D7-40A5-BFB0-26284A667E78@vpnc.org> <DC9ED318-2352-4AF0-8A43-29D237C32B64@vigilsec.com> <924045CD-DC34-423B-8702-CD99CF687D46@vpnc.org> <31344.1401304682@sandelman.ca> <BF0C8B7B-27D0-40B8-8FBD-5D255951222F@ericsson.com> <538795FB.6060205@gmail.com>
To: carlos@lacnic.net
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.2)
X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-MailScanner-From: bmanning@isi.edu
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/75qnWJK9bjTPrgtaDIhSlMIRXLM
Cc: IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 29 May 2014 20:43:03 -0000

apparently there is not “enough consensus”, since several roots don’t have published v6 addresses.
there -might- be rough consensus in a narrow slice of the technical community that has an axe to grind.
end of the day, the IETF has no say on how people operate their networks/services.

if you think it should, i’d like to see a resolution of the DMARC deployment that requires all SMTP
servers to require, per IETF mandate to support DMARC.

Engineering is not Operations.   This is not the IOTF.

/bill
Neca eos omnes.  Deus suos agnoscet.

On 29May2014Thursday, at 13:18, Carlos M. Martinez <carlosm3011@gmail.com> wrote:

> I think there is enough consensus saying that root server operators MUST
> support IPv6. I think it's hard to argue that the Internet needs this to
> move to IPv6, as otherwise we'll be saying that it'll be ok for future
> networks to not be able to access some root servers, or putting the
> burden of supporting all IPv6 on a subset of root servers.
> 
> If you add that not all root server operators offer anycast copies, or
> do it in a limited way, well, we could be putting the IPv6 internet in a
> fragile position.
> 
> IMO, setting this requirement is well within the core competencies of
> the IETF.
> 
> Then comes the question what to do (if anything) with those root server
> operators who chose to ignore this MUST.
> 
> IMO, This is probably outside the IETF's sphere, and it should be
> possible to even say so in the proposed document.
> 
> cheers!
> 
> ~Carlos
> 
> On 29/05/2014 05:24, Jari Arkko wrote:
>> 
>>> I would like every A-M.root-servers.net have an A and AAAA record.
>>> 
>>> I don't care how the root-server operators decide to partition to workload
>>> among hardware.
>> 
>> Yes, that is my view as well.
>> 
>>> Over time we will need more v6 responders and fewer v4
>>> responders.
>>> I don't think that there is, or should be, any requirement that v4 and v6 be
>>> answered by the same system, and given anycast, they might even be in
>>> different locations.
>>> 
>>> I think that the current text captures this just fine:
>> 
>> Agreed.
>> 
>> Jari
>> 
>