>Looking for a few folks to do a close read. Send notes to the list, and >I'll make necessary revisions. If it's baked, I think there's consensus.
I read through it. It's basically fine but of course here are a few suggestions. I'd redo sec 1.2 to make it clearer what the serious problems are. I don't think that the length of the names is a big deal, computers can deal with that. The problems are a) the address space is far too large to cover with static names as we do in IPv4 and, b) you can't easily tell where the hosts are. On IPv4 networks, addresses are usually configured either statically or by DHCP, so the network operator knows what addresses are assigned befor the hosts do. On IPv6, SLAAC means that hosts choose addresses effectively at random, so there are new and not widely used mechanisms (described later) to percolate those addresses back to the network and assign names to them. It would also be reasonable to offer as a concrete proposal that hosts with static addresses have forward and reverse DNS, while those without have no rDNS, and don't have forward DNS provided by the ISP. (If they want to use dyndns, go ahead.) In the list of ways to dynamically insert DNS records, it seems to me that most current home gateways are plenty capable to act as DNS servers or whatever, so the issue isn't that they can't, but that nontechnical users wouldn't be able to manage them, while malware would. R's, John _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
