Subject: [dns-dir] FWD: Re: [v6ops] Review of:draft-ietf-v6ops-v6-aaaa-whitelisting-implications-03

From: Thomas Narten <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 04 May 2011 08:23:55 -0400

For those not following v6ops, the two messages below are a pretty
accurate assessment (IMO) of the document. I think it would be good to
have a balanced document on whitelisting, but IMO, this document isn't
it. But as always, once you have a document that is near the end
stage, getting substantive revisions is really hard. The authors
aren't really able to do so, and no one wants to step in and redo the
document as a whole.

Thomas

------- Forwarded Message

From: Erik Kline <[email-masked]>
To: "STARK, BARBARA H (ATTSI)" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "Richard L. Barnes" <[email-masked]>, [email-masked],
        Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 May 2011 00:26:08 +0900
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Review
	of:draft-ietf-v6ops-v6-aaaa-whitelisting-implications-03

There's a lot the draft doesn't discuss.

Google is the only entity actively doing this right now, though Akamai
has announced that they are doing it (auto-discovering what's safe to
add to a whitelist), and both Facebook and Yahoo have expressed
interest in doing this (Facebook has already begun whitelisting
actually).

AFAIK none of use have contributed substantially to this document, nor
do I have the time to fix all the things that would need fixing (I'd
just write a new doc and don't even have the time to do that).

IMHO, this document is not a real discussion of whitelisting mechanics
and motivations.  It is, rather, a harangue against its use, despite
the fact that it is, and may remain for some period (which we all do
want to be as short as possible), an operational reality/necessity.
_______________________________________________
v6ops mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops

From: Lorenzo Colitti <[email-masked]>
To: Erik Kline <[email-masked]>
Cc: "Richard L. Barnes" <[email-masked]>, [email-masked],
        Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 May 2011 18:35:51 +0200
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Review
	of:draft-ietf-v6ops-v6-aaaa-whitelisting-implications-03

On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 5:26 PM, Erik Kline <[email-masked]> wrote:

> IMHO, this document is not a real discussion of whitelisting mechanics
> and motivations.  It is, rather, a harangue against its use, despite
> the fact that it is, and may remain for some period (which we all do
> want to be as short as possible), an operational reality/necessity.

Right. For us (Google - but I think a lot of large website operators are in
the same boat), whitelisting is the only possible option for IPv6
deployment, period. Subjecting hundreds of thousands of users to breakage is
simply not an option, so while we don't particularly like the disadvantages
of whitelisting, it's much, much better than doing nothing.

We don't think that the draft is a balanced assessment of the situation, but
at the same time, we don't have time to contribute to it, because we'd much
rather be working on deployment, services, and operational concerns (e.g.,
6to4 deprecation) rather than discussing something that for us is
unavoidable. So we find ourselves in the situation that we don't really
support the text but don't have time to influence it, and since we don't
feel it's fair to simply attack the text without contributing, we're simply
letting the document run its course.

As Erik has noted, Google and Facebook are employing whitelisting, and Yahoo
and Akamai have publicly announced their intention to do it. In a sense,
it's just like DNS-based load-balancing. The vast majority of websites don't
use it, but a lot of the very large ones do.

Cheers,
Lorenzo

v6ops mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops

------- End of Forwarded Message

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 04 May 2011 14:30:43 +0200

Thomas,

> aren't really able to do so, and no one wants to step in and redo the

Indeed. I know this document is not matching reality and it feels bad to 
publish an IETF RFC that IMO takes a very one sided view of this matter. 
That being said, a significant revision would take time, effort, and 
additional people. Don't know where these would come, and whether its 
worth it. (I'm guessing after World IPv6 Day there might be a bit more 
cycles available from the guys who are doing this kind of whitelisting, 
but not right now.)

Jari