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

Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com> Thu, 19 January 2017 13:43 UTC

Return-Path: <fgont@si6networks.com>
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 1EB641295D0; Thu, 19 Jan 2017 05:43:19 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 ooTcrK6Njikn; Thu, 19 Jan 2017 05:43:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from fgont.go6lab.si (fgont.go6lab.si [IPv6:2001:67c:27e4::14]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A5F66129467; Thu, 19 Jan 2017 05:43:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.3.102] (142-135-17-190.fibertel.com.ar [190.17.135.142]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by fgont.go6lab.si (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B26F582B0E; Thu, 19 Jan 2017 14:43:08 +0100 (CET)
Subject: Re: Stephen Farrell's Discuss on draft-ietf-6man-rdnss-rfc6106bis-15: (with DISCUSS)
To: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
References: <148483027733.10394.5733573036724815686.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
From: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: N1110
Message-ID: <677f1f83-a6ea-c03d-565d-33719cb0b924@si6networks.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2017 10:36:43 -0300
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: <148483027733.10394.5733573036724815686.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/KuC5g3C0H5wEYp8_QCrX9dtdLEo>
Cc: ipv6@ietf.org, draft-ietf-6man-rdnss-rfc6106bis@ietf.org, bob.hinden@gmail.com, 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 13:43:19 -0000

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.

Thanks,
-- 
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: fgont@si6networks.com
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492