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

From: Peter Koch <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 1 May 2011 23:32:45 +0200

On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 07:29:42AM -0400, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 05:38:49PM -0400, Ralph Droms wrote:
> > Has anyone from the DNS Directorate reviewed draft-ietf-v6ops-v6-aaaa-whitelisting-implications-03, which is on the agenda for this week's telechat?
> > 
> 
> I had not, but I read it quickly just now and I have no objection.  (I
> do think it could use a pass with an aggressive red pen -- there are

we had this document on the DNSOP agenda a while ago when the authors
were looking for the right venue to progress it.  It seemed pretty clear
that it was more of a v6 than a DNS issue, but I had and still have my doubts
that the IETF is the right organisation and that an RFC is the right
publications means for this kind of text.

It's not really clear whether it specifies the whitelisting mechanism
to then criticize it in the first place.  I believe the Cisco IPJ or
the ISOC ISP column would be more appropriate for this kind of
advocacy.  For a technical document, the language is partly too
sloppy and there's no clear separation between content and opinion.
Therefore, I'd at least support Andrew's advise re: red pen review.
It's good work looking for the wrong publisher.

-Peter

---

From: Ralph Droms <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 May 2011 09:22:54 +0200

Have you all seen Dave Crocker's review of this doc?  Comments?

- Ralph

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 May 2011 07:07:06 -0400

> Have you all seen Dave Crocker's review of this doc?  Comments?

For part of his review, I wasn't actually sure he'd read the same
document I had.  He appears not to have understood how the trick
works, which at the very least does suggest that the draft needs
another spin since it wasn't clear enough (I'm assuming that Dave did
in fact read the document carefully enough to be reviewing it).  I'm
not sure where he got the idea that there's a special RR involved.

His claim that the term "whitelisting" is being abused has some merit,
I suppose, though I'm not sure what else one might call this tactic.

A
-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]
Shinkuro, Inc.

---

From: Thomas Narten <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 02 May 2011 08:52:09 -0400

The main problem with this document is that it has way too many words
in it, and it isn't really balanced. It makes a number arguments,
which it then extends to absurdity, to the point that I think it
undermines the key underlying points themselves.

It would really take a rewrite to make this document significantly
better.

But I doubt anyone has the energy to do this.

Thomas