Re: Stephen Farrell's Discuss on draft-ietf-6man-rdnss-rfc6106bis-15: (with DISCUSS)

Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> Thu, 19 January 2017 14:31 UTC

Return-Path: <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 07C1712961A; Thu, 19 Jan 2017 06:31:25 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.5
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.5 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-3.199, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cs.tcd.ie
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 wrK4xa1PyfLp; Thu, 19 Jan 2017 06:31:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [134.226.56.6]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B4A1F129602; Thu, 19 Jan 2017 06:31:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTP id A92F6BE47; Thu, 19 Jan 2017 14:31:20 +0000 (GMT)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at scss.tcd.ie
Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RuuMEpoiMFl0; Thu, 19 Jan 2017 14:31:19 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from [10.87.48.75] (95-45-153-252-dynamic.agg2.phb.bdt-fng.eircom.net [95.45.153.252]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6B660BE3E; Thu, 19 Jan 2017 14:31:18 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cs.tcd.ie; s=mail; t=1484836279; bh=BDH7GH9mDKLTB+5qdmQ879ILIAGCKlfIGo64V6TXjfc=; h=Subject:To:References:Cc:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=4mTF0Tw3ZhU0ymwzh+GtazSUBv/SoVeVrFoFH//eCrAC548zoIpeQJRAtKKqhE5gV kwu9xgGEYTjs4fb8XnDAIDqM9iP1GxN8OgbCtUxYfIENGnj/GFfZzj5mmTGniw4No4 ZfMa7ZUCkEqx46UxInnCWg9jBUQWu+uOFQaPPB08=
Subject: Re: Stephen Farrell's Discuss on draft-ietf-6man-rdnss-rfc6106bis-15: (with DISCUSS)
To: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
References: <148483027733.10394.5733573036724815686.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <677f1f83-a6ea-c03d-565d-33719cb0b924@si6networks.com>
From: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
Openpgp: id=D66EA7906F0B897FB2E97D582F3C8736805F8DA2; url=
Message-ID: <9020fab3-06cd-7de8-3a09-7ee0d8e6359a@cs.tcd.ie>
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2017 14:31:18 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.5.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <677f1f83-a6ea-c03d-565d-33719cb0b924@si6networks.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha-256; boundary="------------ms040001020808070900080502"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/Ey7k4H-_UEt4GSEzRSD-7iJO4gE>
Cc: bob.hinden@gmail.com, draft-ietf-6man-rdnss-rfc6106bis@ietf.org, ipv6@ietf.org, 6man-chairs@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ipv6/>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2017 14:31:25 -0000


On 19/01/17 13:36, Fernando Gont wrote:
> On 01/19/2017 09:51 AM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
>> Stephen Farrell has entered the following ballot position for
>> draft-ietf-6man-rdnss-rfc6106bis-15: Discuss
>>
>> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
>> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
>> introductory paragraph, however.)
>>
>>
>> Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
>> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>>
>>
>> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6man-rdnss-rfc6106bis/
>>
>>
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> DISCUSS:
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>> I think this is the first "configure my DNS" thing to come
>> before the IESG since DPRIVE has gotten an output, so it seems
>> fair to ask now:
>>
>> Why doesn't the DNS server information include a port now that
>> we have both 53 and 853 as options?  Without that, how is a
>> host supposed to know which to use? Did the WG consider
>> DPRIVE? If so, what was the conclusion? If not, what is the
>> right thing to do? (Add the port no? Define a new DHCPv6 option
>> for DNS/TLS? Something else?)
> 
> FWIW, this is a revision of an existing standard, aimed at fixing known
> problems. Giving how critical it is to IPv6 deployment to convey DNS
> information, I'd personally expect that something like you suggest
> (which is sensible), would be done in a separate document -- e.g., in a
> brand-new option.

I do agree that helping IPv6 deployment is more important at
this stage than ensuring DPRIVE is handled as an integral
part of this draft. OTOH, I'd be even happier if that's a WG
consensus position and not just you and I:-)

Cheers,
S.


> 
> Thanks,
>