Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-v6ops-v6-aaaa-whitelisting-implications-03.txt> (IPv6 AAAA DNS Whitelisting Implications) to Informational RFC

[SM <[e-mail]>]

At 13:51 15-04-2011, The IESG wrote:

>The IESG has received a request from the IPv6 Operations WG (v6ops) to
>consider the following document:
>- 'IPv6 AAAA DNS Whitelisting Implications'
>   <draft-ietf-v6ops-v6-aaaa-whitelisting-implications-03.txt> as an
>Informational RFC
>
>The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
>final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the

 From Section 1:

   "The fraction of users with such impaired access has been estimated
    to be roughly 0.078% of total Internet users".

That's probably "web" users.

 From the Abstract:

   "The objective of this document is to describe what the whitelisting
    of DNS AAAA resource records is, hereafter referred to as DNS
    whitelisting, as well as the implications of this emerging practice
    and what alternatives may exist."

The only alternatives listed are a few paragraphs in Section 
8.3.  After reading the draft, it's hard to say whether the problem 
should be addressed at the network level, the DNS level or whether it 
is a chicken and egg problem.  The draft seems to aim to keep 
everyone happy by covering what different parties may view as issues.

Section 3 is about "What Problems Are Implementers Trying To 
Solve".  My naive view is that:

  1. Web browser tries to connect to web site over IPv6
  2. User has to wait for a timeout to get content over IPv4
  3. Content provider sees this as a business case against adopting IPv6

An alternative is to disable IPv6 in the web browser or have a popup 
message that says "IPv6 allows you to access more web sites.  Does 
your ISP support IPv6? Y/N".

Or the workaround can be done through DNS as documented in this 
draft.  It will be interesting to see what 8.8.8.8 will do.

In Section 6:

   "In either of these deployment scenarios, it is possible that
    reputable third parties could create and maintain DNS whitelists, in
    much the same way that blacklists are used for reducing email spam."

I suggest using DNSBLs instead of "blacklists".

As I do meet the religious requirements, I cannot take a position on 
this draft.

Regards,
-sm