On 8Aug 2006, at 3:05 PM, Peter Koch wrote:
Dear WG,
this initiates a Working Group Last Call for
draft-ietf-dnsop-default-local-zones-00.txt
to end Thursday, 2006-08-24 23:59:59 UTC
The last call appeared during my vacation, apologies for the later
reply.
Bottom line: I think this is important work and support it to
eventually be published as BCP. But....
The text needs a bit more attention.
I had the benefit of reading the thread so I was not so surprised
that I had to read section 3 a couple of times and still didn't get
it. So, I think that the suggestions by Peter are actually needed to
improve readability and to make this document useful for the regular
admin. I am not sure if that is sufficient.
Wouldn't it be a sensible suggestion to enter the e-mail address of
the 'local' adminsitrator for the MMAIL field?
As for Ed's question:
Chapter 4 needs FQDN's in it. Also, why the IANA registry
reference? I don't see that IANA needs to have a list of these
"should be split-view'ed" zones.
This is because you want to be able to point to a central place where
the list of names is maintained for which queries SHOULD NOT get out
on the internet. Besides you want to carefully control what gets on
that list. Hence an IANA registry, including the highest possible
review bar to get data in that registry. Or am I not listening
carefully and missing Ed's point?
Just a question. How is this going to be 'evenginerized'. Just
creating a BCP is not sufficient. This is something that can be part
of example configs in nameserver code but then the question is how to
turn it on and get the appropriate parameters. In other words who is
going to do the marketing after the IETF is done with it?
--Olaf
-----------------------------------------------------------
Olaf M. Kolkman
NLnet Labs
http://www.nlnetlabs.nl/
.
dnsop resources:_____________________________________________________
web user interface: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/dnsop.html
mhonarc archive: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/dnsop/index.html
