IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Joe Abley <jabley@hopcount.ca> Fri, 30 May 2014 09:50 UTC

Return-Path: <jabley@hopcount.ca>
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 4680E1A07B2 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 30 May 2014 02:50:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 RcohGrUeYKXS for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 30 May 2014 02:50:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wg0-x232.google.com (mail-wg0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c00::232]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ACA711A07DC for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 30 May 2014 02:50:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wg0-f50.google.com with SMTP id x12so1739446wgg.9 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 30 May 2014 02:49:59 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=hopcount.ca; s=google; h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=lYsKU0jf7Ujc1g6l6xsrKFeXgQNQIBMt6EnBnHoBZZo=; b=ChPv+OA/++jUfy1zVvsmKhOOcJSnO3hlCeaYxfXhiQtWCeJAEsOsqxWjqeB+Icjjy4 b7wcvIjiaCWcoopXkFZLPeJexdruxQCyDARGIUgC6BcTnZwd6o4LDsxIKdx+99LgQbQM dseIa8rjIlXNQ4D5OhpjtOfdJtGJermReH6DA=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:content-type:mime-version:subject:from :in-reply-to:date:cc:content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references :to; bh=lYsKU0jf7Ujc1g6l6xsrKFeXgQNQIBMt6EnBnHoBZZo=; b=gH4PBmE9SVq7NZSYdZyHAVZ0Odz0eEi007YeFgRfOnSES4ddonVdrl11ku/mWnYn3d yUhTtWyJM/sY0yEfZuryr+QDjrVXY6dgU66MTZSmRbyoMrUEysmbuuZFNzrIBb3UB0KA AgiLvmiDNyF/GDYWmjWwTADKs3s12H85xMjvwX8+/ODao3fCKMsUt/wAVF/7aZakMR4B Tiwa5MFO/y9E+a1ZvYBQOgRFas+eeOmDfT9uN8C7TXtwwEVT0R5jImIxbWMhhW+IEQLu 27s/mxA+Ww9f4tTAtSvoR5HhttIB5vhCbKwnpRSIKaqH1eAlYnM7svq0VaEQcR9xiSGW Zj7g==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmxJ2w1lBN/vKqPgax+nEvmbv2Zd2oBvSlYJLY5uHr7aoVDcPiHwfdZfiACVcmN2JlqLOoi
X-Received: by 10.194.63.196 with SMTP id i4mr20505793wjs.50.1401443399160; Fri, 30 May 2014 02:49:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wifi-216-136.mtg.afnog.org (wifi-216-136.mtg.afnog.org. [196.200.216.136]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id em5sm4524096wic.23.2014.05.30.02.49.57 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 30 May 2014 02:49:58 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.2\))
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-iab-2870bis-01.txt> (DNS Root Name Service Protocol and Deployment Requirements) to Best Current Practice
From: Joe Abley <jabley@hopcount.ca>
In-Reply-To: <FDC0E3E9-DD1B-4EF4-8C3C-54B902AEC92F@vigilsec.com>
Date: Fri, 30 May 2014 12:49:54 +0300
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <3F0D0CB6-B534-433D-B321-762EB15D2126@hopcount.ca>
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> <FDC0E3E9-DD1B-4EF4-8C3C-54B902AEC92F@vigilsec.com>
To: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.2)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/SAbDyJTS-pV05ct7kKB1zS4pJp0
Cc: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>, 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: Fri, 30 May 2014 09:50:06 -0000

On 28 May 2014, at 20:09, Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> wrote:

>>>> |      MUST support IPv4[RFC0791] and IPv6[RFC2460] transport of DNS
>>>> |      queries and responses.
>>>> 
>>>> This needs an addition: "Some servers in the root name service might not support IPv4, and some might not support IPv6." Without that, some people might think that each server must respond on both layer 3 technologies, but they do not.
>>> 
>>> I would like to see each and every root server support both IPv4 and IPv6.  
>> 
>> So would I. But is that a *requirement*, particularly given that the root service seems to run just fine today without it?
>> 
>> I propose that the addition is still needed, despite what you and I would like to see.
> 
> If a root server does not support both IPv4 and IPv6 then it does not comply with the proposed BCP.

The current text talks about the service, not individual servers.

The service (as provided by thirteen root servers) is available over both IPv6 and IPv4 today, and hence complies with the proposed BCP.


Joe

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email