as one of the as112 co-authors, i'll chime-in here.
you're right, there's an opportunity to leverage an existing mechanism and
registry for this draft. both rfc 6303 and rfc 6304 were developed at
different times so there's a little bit of a disconnect between those as
well. i think my draft submitted to dnsop for their adoption tries to
bridge the two by making reference to the registry. if it does't, it
should.
i've been contemplating a rfc6304bis that would:
- extend as112 operations to use ipv6 addressing;
- reference the registry in 6303 as well; and,
- propose a registry for special names
the latter two points are important in that i am mindful of duplicating
efforts and placing more workload on the iana to keep track of yet more
registries. if these drafts/rfcs could keep the registries to just one,
(or two maximum) it may be better for everyone.
btw, early discussions in the life of the draft versions of rfc 6304 kept
special names out for two reasons:
a) we intended to document the current practice
b) we didn't want to invite potentially heated discussions that treaded
into someone else's territory when it came to special names.
another point for consideration is the discrepancy between 6303 and 6304
in that one is a bcp while the other isn't. not sure what the impact is
beyond face-value though and if that should be fixed. i gauge the feeling
on as112-ops.
thanks,
On Wed, 28 Mar 2012, Alfred Hönes wrote:
The referenced draft seems strongly related to DNSOP as well,
but to avoid cross-posting, here's only the initial part of
my review just posted to the dnsext mailing list.
-------- start of forwarded message --------
Hi,
I've performed a quick review of the DNSEXT-related I-D,
draft-cheshire-dnsext-special-names-02
and would like to submit a few notes.
(A) Significant issues
(A.1)
Firstly, I'm surprised by the non-trivial overlap of this work
with RFC 6303 and the IANA Registry created by it, the "AS112" RFCs,
and the ongoing work-in-progress to address more emerging overload
reasons for the authoritative root/infrastructure DNS servers by
extending the scope of the AS112 project, registering more "special"
domain names in that "Locally Served DNS Zones" IANA registry, and
specifying that they be treated as specified in RFC 6303.
The present draft not even quotes RFC 6303 for Sect. 5.1, where
the largest overlap with RFC 6303 occurs. (I have not yet studied
in detail inhowfar the new specification in that section is
compatible or collides with the normative behavior specified in
RFC 6303.)
[...snip...]
-------- end of forwarded message --------
To see the full review, please refer to the copy archived in the
DNSEXT list archive:
<http://www.IETF.ORG/mail-archive/web/dnsext/current/msg12376.html>
Kind regards,
Alfred Hönes.
--
+------------------------+--------------------------------------------+
| TR-Sys Alfred Hoenes | Alfred Hoenes Dipl.-Math., Dipl.-Phys. |
| Gerlinger Strasse 12 | Phone: (+49)7156/9635-0, Fax: -18 |
| D-71254 Ditzingen | E-Mail: a...@tr-sys.de |
+------------------------+--------------------------------------------+
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
wfms
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
