Dear colleagues,
After several discussions in f2f meetings and on the list, we’ve decided to adopt draft-momoka-dnsop-3901bis for DNSOP, with a few caveats. Several weeks ago, the chairs put out a Call for Adoption for this draft. We hadn’t reported back on that because we had some discussion and have been pondering what to do. Looking at the results of the CfA, we didn’t see a lot of support from DNSOP participants; there seemed to be more interest from V6OPS participants. But we do see a couple of reasons to revisit RFC 3901 from a DNS operations perspective: it’s 20 years old now, the deployment of IPv6 has changed significantly in that time, and the audience for such a document has also evolved. We also agree that the draft needs input from both IPv6 and DNS experts if it’s to proceed. Looking at the draft as a DNSOP work item, we have the same questions we’ve often asked about other drafts, particularly as updates to BCPs: is the draft in fact describing a best current practice or a "likely-to-be best practice"? For a -bis version of a BCP, what drives the requirement for an update? What is it recommending, why are its recommendations “best” under common circumstances, and what operational limits or exceptions does it have? The current draft touches on these questions but needs some expansion in the reasoning (as discussed on the list between Tobias, Geoff, and others). We also note that BCPs have sometimes proven very difficult to converge on consensus in DNSOP, because there are so many knobs and quirks and exceptions in the deployment of DNS, and engaging with them can have enormous operational impacts. So it’s a good idea in such cases to resist scope creep as much as possible. Authors, please post draft-ietf-dnsop-3901bis. Best, Benno, Suzanne, and Tim
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list -- dnsop@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to dnsop-le...@ietf.org
