Hi, As I already indicated several times, I think this is needed and agree with this document. In fact, I've included a reference to this document in RFC8683.
Just a minor point regarding the abstract. I think it should be a single paragraph, and moving most of the text to the intro (I've been told this a couple of time with my own documents). In Section 4.1, I think could also include a reference to DNS privacy/encryption. In RFC8683 I'm calling all this "foreign DNS" (see section 4.4). Relevant to this document see also section 4.1.1 in RFC8683 and the IANA Consideration section that I had in the version before the RFC8683: 8. IANA Considerations This document does not have any new specific IANA considerations. Note: This section is assuming that https://www.rfc- editor.org/errata/eid5152 is resolved, otherwise, this section may include the required text to resolve the issue. Alternatively, this could be fixed also by [I-D.cheshire-sudn-ipv4only-dot-arpa]. So, may be is time to also clear the errata, indicating that it is fixed by this document? Regards, Jordi @jordipalet El 19/1/20 23:39, "DNSOP en nombre de Warren Kumari" <dnsop-boun...@ietf.org en nombre de war...@kumari.net> escribió: Hi there all, Back in 2018, I've mentioned that I've agreed to AD sponsor draft-cheshire-sudn-ipv4only-dot-arpa ( https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-cheshire-sudn-ipv4only-dot-arpa/ ), and asked for review / feedback. When RFC7050 was written, the name 'ipv4only.arpa' was not requested to be added to the SUDN registry - regardless of if you think that RFC7050 is a good idea or not, having this properly recorded seems like an obvious win. I asked DNSOP (and the BEHAVE list) for review and input back in 2018. The authors have (finally!) posted a new version with some comments addressed, and I'm requesting IETF LC. Please send comments as usual (but, again, this isn't a discussion on the advisability of RFC7050, just on this document :-)) -------- Abstract The specification for how a client discovers its local network's NAT64 prefix [RFC7050] defines the special name 'ipv4only.arpa' for this purpose, but in its Domain Name Reservation Considerations section that specification indicates that the name actually has no particularly special properties would require special handling, and does not request IANA to record the name in the Special-Use Domain Names registry. Consequently, despite the well articulated special purpose of the name, 'ipv4only.arpa' was not recorded in the Special-Use Domain Names registry as a name with special properties. As a result of this omission, in cases where software needs to give this name special treatment in order for it to work correctly, there was no clear mandate authorizing software authors to implement that special treatment. Software implementers were left with the choice between not implementing the special behavior necessary for the name queries to work correctly, or implementing the special behavior and being accused of being noncompliant with some RFC. This document describes the special treatment required, formally declares the special properties of the name, and adds similar declarations for the corresponding reverse mapping names. ----- Thank you! W -- I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad idea in the first place. This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair of pants. ---maf _______________________________________________ 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.theipv6company.com 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
