On Mar 20, 2013, at 4:04 PM, SM <s...@resistor.net> wrote:
> I might as well comment quickly about draft-housley-rfc2050bis-00. The draft
> is a good effort but it might need more work in my humble opinion.
>
> The intended status is Informational. Is there a reason for that?
The RFC is not intended to establish anything new, only to recognize
the existing agreements and practices of the IETF in this area.
> Why does the document obsolete RFC 2050? There is no explanation for that in
> the Abstract or the Introduction section.
The explanation is in Section 5 (Summary of Changes Since RFC 2050);
isn't that usual practice for an RFC which replaces another in entirety?
> In Section 3:
>
> "Reverse DNS: In situations where reverse DNS was used, the
> policies and practices of the Internet Numbers Registry System
> have included consideration of the technical and operational
> requirements posed by reverse DNS zone delegation [RFC3172]."
>
> According to RFC 5855:
>
> "The choice of operators for all nameservers concerned is beyond the
> scope of this document and is an IANA function that falls under the
> scope of Section 4 of the MoU between the IETF and ICANN [RFC2860]."
>
> Maybe referencing RFC 5855 would be better. It may be easier not to say
> anything about reverse DNS.
The text in RFC 5855 that you reference is with respect only to the
two top-level reverse domains, i.e. "all nameservers concerned" is
preceded by:
"1. IN-ADDR-SERVERS.ARPA to the nameservers listed in Section 2;
2. IP6-SERVERS.ARPA to the nameservers listed in Section 3."
> "Per the delineation of responsibility for Internet address policy
> issues specified in the IETF/IAB/ICANN MOU [RFC2860], discussions
> regarding the evolution of the Internet Numbers Registry System
> structure, policy, and processes are to take place within the ICANN
> framework and will respect ICANN's core values [ICANNBL]. These core
> values encourage broad, informed participation reflecting the
> functional, geographic, and cultural diversity of the Internet at all
> levels of policy development and decision-making, as well as the
> delegation of coordination functions and recognition of the policy
> roles of other responsible entities that reflect the interests of
> affected parties. The discussions regarding Internet Numbers
> Registry evolution must also continue to consider the overall
> Internet address architecture and technical goals referenced in this
> document."
>
> Could someone please translate the above in plain English? What's the IETF
> angle in all that?
It looks to be plain English to me... can you be more specific
about what part of the text which is problematic?
> Why should I read RFC 6484 to understand draft-housley-rfc2050bis-00?
I believe this is a trailing reference that should be deleted at this
point.
Thanks for the comments!
/John
Disclaimers: My views alone. Use care in opening; contents may have
shifted during electronic flight.
