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

["Carlos M. Martinez" <[e-mail]>]

Hi

On 29/05/2014 17:41, manning bill wrote:
> 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.

I meant consensus here, not in the root server operator community.

I believe that there is a limit on the argument of operational
independence. If you agree to provide a service the whole Internet
depends on, well, it's reasonable that you need to comply with certain
requirements.

If an operator can't / won't comply with the requirements set by the
IETF, they can ask to be relieved of their duty.

> 
> 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.

DMARC/mailing lists are hardly critical infrastructure. This is not even
remotely comparable to the root server issue in terms of impact.

> 
> /bill

~Carlos
> Neca eos omnes.  Deus suos agnoscet.
> 
> On 29May2014Thursday, at 13:18, Carlos M. Martinez <[e-mail]> 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
>>>
>>
>