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

[Lorenzo Colitti <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 00:36, Joel jaeggli <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Ops is not marketing.
>

And if I were looking for a marketing venue, a standards body that produces
ASCII text documents read by a handful of engineers would not be high on my
list. This is not about marketing.


> If you're saying some flag day makes the contents of the document no
> longer operationally relevant after a given date, I'll take the point
> but disagree.
>

I think you're missing my point.

It seems to me that approximately 30% of the non-biolerplate text in this
draft discusses DNS whitelisting. (And in fact, in its original form the
draft entirely on DNS whitelisting - hence the filename. The rest was added
later.)

Whitelisting is a practice relevant to a few large websites (since nobody
else is using it). It so happens that the websites that employ this
practice are going to stop using it, all together. Given the cost and
implications, I'd say practice is unlikely to be resurrected.

So, you decide to tell the whole story, and talk about whitelisting *and*
World IPv6 Launch. Or you can decide that whitelisting will soon be
irrelevant, and not talk about either whitelisting or World IPv6
Launch. But you can't talk about whitelisting without talking about World
IPv6 Launch, because if you do, your document is missing the key piece "how
do you remove the whitelist", and that's a disservice to its readers.

To be more specific, at least section 5.5 ("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 now incorrect. It *is*
clear, and it's what those implementers are doing as part of World IPv6
Launch.

Does that make more sense?

Cheers,
Lorenzo