Re: 6MAN Working group last call: draft-ietf-6man-rdnss-rfc6106bis
神明達哉 <jinmei@wide.ad.jp> Wed, 24 February 2016 19:27 UTC
Return-Path: <jinmei.tatuya@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 37CD81B3C8C for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Feb 2016 11:27:18 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.978
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.978 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=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 xpJQarufbD_7 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Feb 2016 11:27:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-io0-x22d.google.com (mail-io0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c06::22d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1939A1ACD49 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 24 Feb 2016 11:27:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-io0-x22d.google.com with SMTP id l127so60640815iof.3 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 24 Feb 2016 11:27:16 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=JsS7HZYpj/kF0z0rdfZnzVwfQLOTHbYnYNkfGvPuUVU=; b=K8I1Ux9ZIwtu3VmY3w5Q0GQM/SdJL2eS8/NvEfn1qsi5HnSKgam87Sd59hYa18sOWC lqiV1NIpvCmD39OzXAmZaIVUd1LB4InqC+H21yDQKeUyGLdWOLCzCcjkjfD1sXr0MqIp QCc95w4Pw6wIGLS355duH9yArKcnf6nqfULQbbfacBCzjK6Czc61pX6brtm9gMf1OtSW Fe3j93lWGRv3zFv6Ci8CyBTa0Y47TzgoqdeQl6FGhyxonFwQtE2r9Ait6y0uZI6xJ9xC ZVGsMiMjAnSBjts5yibjogPGpmRCNIYH/lc7DVykN8/9FDlDu7MbvDQ6RcE6+IP8S26D k6Fg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=JsS7HZYpj/kF0z0rdfZnzVwfQLOTHbYnYNkfGvPuUVU=; b=EpOrAAYl9SuEo1PhrjRf1d5mnTAW+3jmB8B3H4kHmaQPJNAh4QFMVN/jzJI57KemLd orSz3PlbR0o4J1s7wtdcxgFSpNmwVe21bL/54fW6C3IZwbvbTP6tGDr35amqIKr45wYz 8/jq2KMssCGTJ1QSl0+5Lt1NCJN7m6aJfTNeOL/bYFMkYZ7kVJkAuf/ClxESDeLvCV17 frguBIZJX+7AVO/iMDWqLzrzbwXFalDqbRrUGvnsU09jupPtBhPhJdn9hMwTWKyhp/90 whaYUFno52g0ieniQjElMdMU8vez4kXW7RiUpQB7KOkObwP1dYxoirdinAfQP02ZeGGn t/ow==
X-Gm-Message-State: AG10YOTiLuR38evstR7+W62LZlMEMYfOnDJ0cg0r5LbavPFoGMoMvv4pzL6WzG22ef4kkQ/Wh1D9/JtXkDFK1g==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.107.198.197 with SMTP id w188mr38094062iof.178.1456342035340; Wed, 24 Feb 2016 11:27:15 -0800 (PST)
Sender: jinmei.tatuya@gmail.com
Received: by 10.107.169.35 with HTTP; Wed, 24 Feb 2016 11:27:15 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <6AC58C26-01B6-4C16-851F-0C1228CDD2AF@employees.org>
References: <6AC58C26-01B6-4C16-851F-0C1228CDD2AF@employees.org>
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2016 11:27:15 -0800
X-Google-Sender-Auth: lXlFTvuajCZu_AM2zCMq6qcU4mI
Message-ID: <CAJE_bqfvE0jGoRi2X=ohpqsXmGx9AVKnjeGH-P8zWp6=3_kbVA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: 6MAN Working group last call: draft-ietf-6man-rdnss-rfc6106bis
From: 神明達哉 <jinmei@wide.ad.jp>
To: Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/ONd704zGa8tIx8fGnQZNd6V9Vbg>
Cc: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Wed, 24 Feb 2016 19:27:18 -0000
At Tue, 9 Feb 2016 10:54:16 +0100, otroan@employees.org wrote: > This message starts a two week 6MAN Working Group Last Call on advancing: > > Title : IPv6 Router Advertisement Options for DNS Configuration > Authors : J. Jeong, S. Park, L. Beloeil, S. Madanapalli > Filename : draft-ietf-6man-rdnss-rfc6106bis-06 > Pages : 17 > Date : 2015-10-09 > > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-6man-rdnss-rfc6106bis-06 > > as a Proposed Standard. Substantive comments and statements of > support for publishing this document should be directed to the > mailing list. Editorial suggestions can be sent to the authors. > This last call will end on 23 February 2016. I've reviewed the 06 version. I don't have a particular opinion on whether to publish it, but I have some comments: - Section 5 The IPv6 DNS configuration mechanism in this document needs two new ND options in Neighbor Discovery: (i) the Recursive DNS Server (RDNSS) option and (ii) the DNS Search List (DNSSL) option. "new" sounds like awkward since, well, it's not new any more. I don't know the usual practice (if any) in cases like this for "-bis" specifications, but I'd suggest just removing "new". - Section 5.1 Lifetime 32-bit unsigned integer. The maximum time, in seconds (relative to the time the packet is sent), over which this RDNSS address MAY be used for name resolution. Shouldn't "relative to the time the packet is sent" actually be "relative to the time the packet is received"? In practice these two wouldn't be different very much anyway, but, technically, the former looks awkward to me since the recipient can't know that time. - Section 5.1 Note: [...] The link zone indices SHOULD be represented in the textual format for scoped addresses as described in [RFC4007]. Perhaps the actual intent is "The link-local addresses SHOULD be represented with their link zone indices in the textual format for scoped addresses as described in [RFC4007]."? Also, it's not very clear to me why it's a "SHOULD". Maybe because it's convenient as the DNS client (stub resolver) implementation can simply pass the textual text (whether it's link-local or not) to a utility function like getaddrinfo()? If so, that's understandable, but I guess it's not obvious and should be explained explicitly. Also, I'm not sure if this convenience (if that's the reason for the SHOULD) is worth the RFC2119 keyword. While it'd certainly be convenient, this seems to be a pure implementation choice. - Section 5.2: s/name/names/ Lifetime 32-bit unsigned integer. The maximum time, in [...] (0xffffffff) represents infinity. A value of zero means that the DNSSL domain name MUST no longer be used. - Section 5.2 Domain Names of DNS Search List One or more domain names of DNS Search List that MUST be encoded using the technique described in Section 3.1 of [RFC1035]. The word "technique" sounds awkward to me as it's the standard wire format of domain names. I suggest, e.g., just saying "...encoded as described in Section 3.1 of [RFC1035]". - Section 6 In environments where the DNS information is stored in user space and ND runs in the kernel, it is necessary to synchronize the DNS information (i.e., RDNSS addresses and DNS search domain names) in kernel space and the Resolver Repository in user space. For the synchronization, an implementation where ND works in the kernel should provide a write operation for updating DNS information from the kernel to the Resolver Repository. One simple approach is to have a daemon (or a program that is called at defined intervals) that keeps monitoring the Lifetimes of RDNSS addresses and DNS search domain names all the time. [...] This seems to assume that "ND runs in the kernel" means that all information in RAs is managed in the kernel. I don't know if there's such an implementation (does Linux work that way?), but it doesn't necessarily have to be so, and is actually different from the BSD implementation: the FreeBSD's rtsol(d) completely works as a user space application, receives RA via an ICMPv6 socket using the standard advanced socket API (RFC3542), and manages RDNSS implementation independently from the kernel (even if some other parts of the RA are managed in the kernel). So, I'd at least suggest clarifying that this kind of approach is only necessary for some deviant protocol stack implementation that doesn't even support RFC3542. And, I'd also mention the FreeBSD-style approach as it should be more generic and portable. - Section 6.3: this section largely repeats the text of Section 6.2 and looks redundant to me. I'd consider unifying these two sections and eliminate unnecessary duplicates. - Section 6.3: on a related point, this text looks awkward: Step (b): For each DNSSL domain name, check the following: [...] [...] for certain reasons in network management, e.g., the termination of the RDNSS or a renaming situation. That is, the RDNSS can resign from its DNS service because the machine running the RDNSS is out of service intentionally or unintentionally. Also, under the renaming situation, the DNSSL How can the termination of a particular RDNSS mean that DNSSL names are not usable anymore? There may be a case where one event is realted to the other, but I don't see any obvious relationship between these two (the RDNSS may simply be replaced with a new, different node). This text rather seems to be a result of a naive copy of Section 6.2. - Section 7.1, second paragraph. Most of the text in this paragraph is irrelevant to this protocol and looks redundant to me. I'd consider just referring to some other document for the general issue. - Section 7.2 The Secure Neighbor Discovery (SEND) protocol [RFC3971] is used as a security mechanism for ND. It is RECOMMENDED that ND use SEND to allow all the ND options including the RDNSS and DNSSL options to be automatically included in the signatures. I don't think this "RECOMMENDED" is realistic. As a matter of fact, SEND isn't even widely implemented, and, IMO, its deployability issues are not easily resolved. I don't have a specific suggestion on how to make the whole text realistic, but I'd at least suggest stopping to make such an unrealistic requirement, especially with an RFC2119 keyword. -- JINMEI, Tatuya
- 6MAN Working group last call: draft-ietf-6man-rdn… otroan
- Re: 6MAN Working group last call: draft-ietf-6man… Fernando Gont
- Re: 6MAN Working group last call: draft-ietf-6man… otroan
- Reviewers needed (Re: 6MAN Working group last cal… Fernando Gont
- Re: 6MAN Working group last call: draft-ietf-6man… 神明達哉
- RE: 6MAN Working group last call: draft-ietf-6man… Liubing (Leo)
- Re: 6MAN Working group last call: draft-ietf-6man… Fernando Gont
- Re: 6MAN Working group last call: draft-ietf-6man… Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong
- Re: 6MAN Working group last call: draft-ietf-6man… Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong
- Re: 6MAN Working group last call: draft-ietf-6man… Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong
- Re: 6MAN Working group last call: draft-ietf-6man… 神明達哉
- Re: 6MAN Working group last call: draft-ietf-6man… Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong
- Re: 6MAN Working group last call: draft-ietf-6man… otroan
- Re: 6MAN Working group last call: draft-ietf-6man… 神明達哉
- Re: 6MAN Working group last call: draft-ietf-6man… Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong
- Re: 6MAN Working group last call: draft-ietf-6man… otroan
- Re: 6MAN Working group last call: draft-ietf-6man… Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong
- Re: 6MAN Working group last call: draft-ietf-6man… 神明達哉
- Re: 6MAN Working group last call: draft-ietf-6man… Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong
- Re: 6MAN Working group last call: draft-ietf-6man… Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong
- Re: 6MAN Working group last call: draft-ietf-6man… 神明達哉
- Re: 6MAN Working group last call: draft-ietf-6man… Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong
- Re: 6MAN Working group last call: draft-ietf-6man… Tassos Chatzithomaoglou
- Re: 6MAN Working group last call: draft-ietf-6man… Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong
- Re: 6MAN Working group last call: draft-ietf-6man… Lorenzo Colitti
- Re: 6MAN Working group last call: draft-ietf-6man… Fernando Gont
- Re: 6MAN Working group last call: draft-ietf-6man… Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong
- Re: 6MAN Working group last call: draft-ietf-6man… Lorenzo Colitti
- Re: 6MAN Working group last call: draft-ietf-6man… Fernando Gont
- Re: 6MAN Working group last call: draft-ietf-6man… 神明達哉
- Re: 6MAN Working group last call: draft-ietf-6man… Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong
- Re: 6MAN Working group last call: draft-ietf-6man… Lorenzo Colitti
- Re: 6MAN Working group last call: draft-ietf-6man… otroan
- Re: 6MAN Working group last call: draft-ietf-6man… Tassos Chatzithomaoglou
- Re: 6MAN Working group last call: draft-ietf-6man… Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong
- Re: 6MAN Working group last call: draft-ietf-6man… Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong
- Re: 6MAN Working group last call: draft-ietf-6man… Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong
- Re: 6MAN Working group last call: draft-ietf-6man… Fernando Gont