I think deprecating RFC7050 will be a bad idea, there are too many 
implementations that really need that, while updating APIs/libraries to make 
sure they comply with this seems easier.



For example, we could have a DHCPv6 option, but in the cellular world DHCPv6 is 
not used ... and even in non-cellular, Android is not using it either.



Regards,

Jordi

 

 



-----Mensaje original-----

De: DNSOP <dnsop-boun...@ietf.org> en nombre de Philip Homburg 
<pch-dnso...@u-1.phicoh.com>

Fecha: jueves, 5 de julio de 2018, 12:06

Para: <dnsop@ietf.org>

Asunto: Re: [DNSOP] AD sponsoring draft-cheshire-sudn-ipv4only-dot-arpa



    >draft-cheshire-sudn-ipv4only-dot-arpa document

    

    Section 7.1:

    "Name resolution APIs and libraries MUST recognize 'ipv4only.arpa' as

    "special and MUST give it special treatment. 

    

    It seems to me that it is going way to far to require all DNS software to

    implement support for a hack that abuses DNS for configuration management of

    a rather poor IPv4 transition technology.

    

    I think the more obvious approach is to formally deprecate RFC 7050 and

    require nodes that need to do NAT64 address synthesis use one of the other

    methods for obtaining the NAT64 prefix.

    

    The only part of the draft that makes sense to me is to make ipv4only.arpa

    an insecure delegation. 

    

    Any other problems are better solved by deprecating RFC 7050.

    

    _______________________________________________

    DNSOP mailing list

    DNSOP@ietf.org

    https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop

    




**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.consulintel.es
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or 
confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the 
individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, 
copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if 
partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be 
considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware 
that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this 
information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly 
prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the 
original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.



_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop

Reply via email to