IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] Last Call: <draft-ietf-v6ops-v6-aaaa-whitelisting-implications-08.txt> (Considerations for Transitioning Content to IPv6) to Informational RFC

"Livingood, Jason" <Jason_Livingood@cable.comcast.com> Tue, 21 February 2012 19:38 UTC

Return-Path: <jason_livingood@cable.comcast.com>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A2C6621E807E; Tue, 21 Feb 2012 11:38:11 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.164
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.164 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.934, BAYES_00=-2.599, HOST_EQ_MODEMCABLE=1.368, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id I6GyP-mpV8Ri; Tue, 21 Feb 2012 11:38:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from cable.comcast.com (copdcavout01.cable.comcast.com [76.96.32.253]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A636921E807B; Tue, 21 Feb 2012 11:38:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ([24.40.56.114]) by copdcavout01.cable.comcast.com with ESMTP id C7WM3M1.6844449; Tue, 21 Feb 2012 12:27:44 -0700
Received: from PACDCEXMB06.cable.comcast.com ([fe80::6134:ea50:286a:c0]) by PACDCEXHUB01.cable.comcast.com ([fe80::d1e7:20b5:9b63:21a6%11]) with mapi id 14.01.0355.002; Tue, 21 Feb 2012 14:38:05 -0500
From: "Livingood, Jason" <Jason_Livingood@cable.comcast.com>
To: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>
Thread-Topic: [v6ops] Last Call: <draft-ietf-v6ops-v6-aaaa-whitelisting-implications-08.txt> (Considerations for Transitioning Content to IPv6) to Informational RFC
Thread-Index: AQHM6/nKbjYam0no7UGRxd2Rv+MjlJZHV/UAgABwwIA=
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 19:38:05 +0000
Message-ID: <CB6958DA.51145%jason_livingood@cable.comcast.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAKD1Yr2n91=8n3n=Nh=zXFy8Rpzj_8D0C=sQQ2B8N0PGEgEQnQ@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.14.0.111121
x-originating-ip: [24.40.56.165]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_CB6958DA51145jasonlivingoodcablecomcastcom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: v6ops v6ops WG <v6ops@ietf.org>, IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Last Call: <draft-ietf-v6ops-v6-aaaa-whitelisting-implications-08.txt> (Considerations for Transitioning Content to IPv6) to Informational RFC
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <v6ops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/v6ops>
List-Post: <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 19:38:11 -0000

On 2/21/12 2:54 AM, "Lorenzo Colitti" <lorenzo@google.com<mailto:lorenzo@google.com>> wrote:
I think the suggested change does not go far enough. The "high-service-level domains" that prompted this draft to be written, and all the implementers I'm currently aware of, are decommissioning the practice.

So the paragraph that states, "It is unclear how implementers will judge when the network conditions will have changed sufficiently to justify turning off DNS Resolver Whitelisting and/or what the process and timing will be for discontinuing this practice" is still incorrect. Can you just remove the paragraph and start the section with "Many implementers have announced that they plan to permanently turn off whitelisting beginning on..." ?

I've changed it around to the following:

Domains that choose to implement DNS Resolver Whitelisting generally consider it to be a temporary measure. Many implementers have announced that they plan to permanently turn off DNS Resolver Whitelisting beginning on the date of the World IPv6 Launch, on June 6, 2012 <xref target='World IPv6 Launch'/>. For any implementers that do not turn off DNS Resolver Whitelisting at that time, it may be unclear how each and every one will judge when the network conditions to have changed sufficiently to justify turning off DNS Resolver Whitelisting. That being said, it is clear that the extent of IPv6 deployment to end users in networks, the state of IPv6-related impairment, and the maturity of IPv6 operations are all important factors. Any such implementers may wish to take into consideration that, as a practical matter, it will be impossible to get to a point where there are no longer any IPv6-related impairments; some reasonably small number of hosts will inevitably be left behind as end users elect not to upgrade them or as some hosts are incapable of being upgraded.


Thanks for your input,
Jason

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email