Alright, some time on my plate ...
On Wed, 4 Apr 2012, Joe Abley wrote:
On 2012-04-04, at 08:20, William F. Maton Sotomayor wrote:
It seems that after delivering my presentation on subsequent AS112
delegations in Quebec City, I hadn't recalled what the group thought about
adopting this work as a dnsop item. So, I'm soliciting feedback on this
request. I have posted version 03 for your consideration.
I think that we need a better mechanism to avoid lame delegations to the AS112
servers, given their loosely-coordinated nature. The add/drop problem for those
servers (the difficulty in requesting zone changes across from a potentially
wide and unknown population of server administrators, and being effectively
unable to measure whether those changes are complete) is a fundamental weakness
in the 112 project as it is operated today.
I like the idea that came up in Québec (which I shall attribute to Warren
Kumari since I've seen other people do that, although I was not in the room at
the time) that the add/drop problem is a lot simpler if every AS112 node hosts
the zone
+1. It's needs more testing admittedly, and I think having an extra
prefix as a test to demonstrate how it would work would be beneficial
before operational roll-out, but I'm getting way ahead of this already.
As George subsequently stated, there needs to be a deletion process just
as there's a removal process.
- update RFC 6304 and 6305 as necessary
- write something that cleans up and unifies the various registries that
currently contain RFC 6303-like names, with appropriate IANA actions (ipv4-cull
contains some references in section 2, see also
draft-cheshire-dnsext-special-names)
- write something that provides guidance for future document authors on when they should specify an
IANA action to add a new zone to the grand unified as112 registry and cause a delegation to
"something" and "sensible" to happen.
This document (as112-cull) attempts to do some of this work, but I don't see a
reason to bite off small mouthfuls if we can expend a small amount of extra
effort and eat the whole sandwich at once.
Yeah, cull is actually part I of II, the second draft was destined to
include a process for adding/removing plus maintaining AS112 servers in
general, an exposition on lameness in AS112, etc. But that can be rolled
into a possible bis.
I am very happy to spend time on this.
I as well.
wfms
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
