Hello all, First, my thanks to William F. Maton Sotomayor for taking up this long-lasting thread and reviving the AS112 drafts.
I have followed up to both new AS112 drafts, draft-ietf-dnsop-as112-ops-02 and draft-ietf-dnsop-as112-under-attack-help-help-02, and I heartly recommend the WG to now undertake all necessary steps to quickly bring these documents to RFC publication. I do not believe that IPv6 considerations should now hold off these drafts even more. I would diagnose considerable unfairness in the WG against the authors if, after being silent for so many months, this issue would now be raised as a show-stopper. The description in the drafts necessarily is a snapshot in time, and any document on operational considerations could be held off indefinitely by a sustained requirement to add the next generation of considerations. Further, I oppose to attempts to mix in forgery resilience aspects into these documents. These are orthogonal to the topic of these drafts and dealt with in a separate effort. We should not blow up every other document with the never ending discussion on the lazyness of operators in the implementation of efficient RPF in access networks, to raise the hurdles for source address spoofing; doing so would be an effective means to totally stall the WG process. I share the opinion of the authors that the 'fading of comments' after -01 was a clear indication that all interested folks did agree with the drafts, and hence that WG consensus on the drafts should have been declared or finally determined formally. All comments I once had sent in have been acted upon gracefully, and I only found two tiny nits in -help-help-02, which can easily be fixed during RFC Editor processing: - in the first paragraph of the Abstract, common spelling prcatice in RFC prose suggests to s/RFC1918/RFC 1918/ ; - in the last paragraph of Section 1, s/to be be/to be/ . Thus, I'd like to ask the chairs to now quickly proceed with both documents. The updates to -02 have been clerical, and hence, if in your opinion WGLC has been carried out last year, go ahead; otherwise, please issue a short WGLC. Since draft-ietf-dnsop-default-local-zones is an essential complementary document, I repeat my request to go ahead with that draft as well. I heartfully await an immediate one-week WGLC on all three drafts so that the outcome can be discussed at IETF, if necessary. The WG charter has milestones for forwarding to the IESG of all these documents by September 2007 (!). The WG would gradually loose its credibility if it proves continued inability to show progress on chartered work items. Kind regards, Alfred Hönes. -- +------------------------+--------------------------------------------+ | TR-Sys Alfred Hoenes | Alfred Hoenes Dipl.-Math., Dipl.-Phys. | | Gerlinger Strasse 12 | Phone: (+49)7156/9635-0, Fax: -18 | | D-71254 Ditzingen | E-Mail: a...@tr-sys.de | +------------------------+--------------------------------------------+ _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop