I apologize for waiting until the last minute to make updates. Earlier versions of this draft have been discussed on-list and at the last two IETF
meetings: draft-howard-isp-ip6rdns-03 Comments from the last meeting were as follows; I think I have responded to all of them in the new draft, except the last one, since I did not know what changes were expected. 1. Need to retrack to Informational. Done. 2. Add comment that same considerations may apply to SOHO/SMB. Done. 3. There was a comment to the effect of, "Let's not codify recommendations that say, 'Don't do this because CPE can't handle it,' if we want CPE to handle it. Leave room for Homegate to improve the situation." Leaving room for Homegate to decide what CPE should do, I softened some language in 2.3.3 and 2.3.5. Instead of saying, "This isn't available today," I say, "This <specific> functionality would be required to do this." 4. Once ISPs get their head around IPv6, they quickly ask, "How am I going to do rDNS?" So, please continue with this. Done. 5. Excellent, detailed comments from Jinmei on list last November, including some bad formatting, arithmetic, references. One particularly good correction was where I had questioned whether wildcards could coexist with more-specific records, and Jinmei pointed out that it was clear that a more-specific would be returned. Thank you very much. 6. You won't even get consensus on "Security Considerations" section. Are there objections to the Security Considerations section? Or any of the rest of the draft? Comments? Thanks, Lee
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
