Request for WGLC for draft-ietf-rtgwg-net2cloud-problem-statement-09 & draft-ietf-rtgwg-net2cloud-gap-analysis-05

[Linda Dunbar <[e-mail]>]

Chris and Jeff, 

We have made significant changes to address the comment and suggestions from IETF106, email discussions and other IETF WGs. 
We have removed all reference to SD-WAN from those two drafts, making the drafts primarily focusing on the problems and gaps of networks to connect enterprise premises with hybrid cloud data centers. 

We believe the following documents are ready for WGLC. Can you please start the WGLC for the following drafts? 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtgwg-net2cloud-problem-statement/
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtgwg-net2cloud-gap-analysis/

thank you very much. 

Linda Dunbar

-----Original Message-----
From: Linda Dunbar 
Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2020 5:54 PM
To: 'Hollenbeck, Scott' <[e-mail]>
Cc: '[e-mail]' <[e-mail]>; '[e-mail]' <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: DNS for Cloud Resources in draft-ietf-rtgwg-net2cloud-problem-statement-08

Scott, 
Here is the revised version with your suggested changes incorporated: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtgwg-net2cloud-problem-statement/


Thank you very much for the review and suggestion. 

Linda Dunbar

-----Original Message-----
From: Linda Dunbar 
Sent: Monday, March 16, 2020 12:01 PM
To: Hollenbeck, Scott <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: RE: DNS for Cloud Resources in draft-ietf-rtgwg-net2cloud-problem-statement-08

Scott, 

Thank you very much for the suggestion. Have changed the text per your suggestion. Will upload the new version when the IETF submission opens up next Monday. 

Linda

-----Original Message-----
From: Hollenbeck, Scott <[e-mail]> 
Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2020 1:19 PM
To: Linda Dunbar <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: DNS for Cloud Resources in draft-ietf-rtgwg-net2cloud-problem-statement-08

(Sorry, this is a late response to a review request original sent to the dnsop list on 11 February)

Section 3.4 (DNS for Cloud Resources) includes these sentences:

"Globally unique names do prevent any possibility of collision at the present or in the future and they make DNSSEC trust manageable. It's not as if there is or even could be some sort of shortage in available names that can be used, especially when subdomains and the ability to delegate administrative boundaries are considered."

Could we make the last sentence stronger, perhaps with a statement like this from the US CERT WPAD Name Collision Vulnerability alert dated May 23, 2016?

"Globally unique names do prevent any possibility of collision at the present or in the future and they make DNSSEC trust manageable. Consider using a registered and fully qualified domain name (FQDN) from global DNS as the root for enterprise and other internal namespaces."

https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.us-cert.gov%2Fncas%2Falerts%2FTA16-144A&amp;data=02%7C01%7Clinda.dunbar%40futurewei.com%7Cc4a7c2f2e85741d5b8a308d7c5e8eef1%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C1%7C637195476559397274&amp;sdata=vBnDcnkZ8Zsk7MT610GQOsRQVt7G%2BLscbvwiDWXX%2Fvc%3D&amp;reserved=0

The alert actually says "other internal namespace", but I think that's a typo.

Scott