Hello, (sorry – previously sent email was not finished …)
Some “typographic” remarks : 1) 5.2 IPv4 Address Block Naming → IPv6 Address Block Naming 2) In 5.2 there are 2 examples that have missing “::”, (2607:fa88:8000:/33 → 2607:fa88:8000::/33 and 2607:fa88:8000:/35 → 2607:fa88:8000::/35) in 5.3 there is 1 example with missing “::”. (2607:fa88:8000:/36 → 2607:fa88:8000::/36) About “content” : 1) 3. Design Requirement → 2. Coverage Authority. “Any … with a data record or NXDOMAIN …” to be completed with : NODATA → “Any … with a data record or NODATA or NXDOMAIN …” 2) In 5.2 IPv6 Address Block Naming Why not add some examples to show conversion from a reverse-DNS name back to CIDR ? (just like in 5.1) Globally : 1) It is implied by the content of the present draft, but should it be stated (in Design Requirements) that the proposal should be valid for both IPv4 and IPv6 addresses ? 2) In the Introduction, where you correctly state that ISP’s pre-populate reverse DNS, the problem is stated that the approach of pre-populating does not scale for IPv6. However, by itself, this draft does not solve that problem, does it ? (needs programmatic support) (this example in the Introduction made me think/assume that this draft also applies to “simple” reverse mapping. In which case I wondered how this draft does away with CNAME (a la RFC 2317). But then, after rereading it occurred to me that this draft is about storing CIDR info in revdns. → isn’t it confusing to give, in the intro, an example that does not apply to CIDR info ? (it got at least me confused, not that I’d want to be taken as a reference ;-) Kind regards, Marc Lampo Security Officer EURid From: Joseph Gersch [mailto:joe.ger...@secure64.com] Sent: 17 February 2012 06:17 PM To: dnsop@ietf.org Subject: [DNSOP] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-gersch-dnsop-revdns-cidr-00.txt All, we have submitted a new draft that will be presented at the Paris IETF meeting. Please take the time to send any comments and suggestions regarding this idea on naming CIDR address blocks in the Reverse DNS. Best regards, - Joe Gersch and Dan Massey Begin forwarded message: From: internet-dra...@ietf.org Date: February 16, 2012 5:09:18 PM MST To: joe.ger...@secure64.com Cc: joe.ger...@secure64.com, mas...@cs.colostate.edu Subject: New Version Notification for draft-gersch-dnsop-revdns-cidr-00.txt A new version of I-D, draft-gersch-dnsop-revdns-cidr-00.txt has been successfully submitted by Joe Gersch and posted to the IETF repository. Filename: draft-gersch-dnsop-revdns-cidr Revision: 00 Title: Reverse DNS Naming Convention for CIDR Address Blocks Creation date: 2012-02-14 WG ID: Individual Submission Number of pages: 19 Abstract: The current reverse DNS naming method is used to specify a complete IP address. It has not been used to handle address ranges; for example, there is no formal mechanism for specifying a reverse DNS name for the block of addresses specified by the IPv4 prefix 129.82.0.0/16. Defining such a reverse DNS naming convention would be useful for a number of applications. These include applications for secure BGP routing, and applications that need host-information for a device owning a complete IPv6 address block. This draft proposes a naming convention for encoding CIDR address blocks in the reverse DNS. The IETF Secretariat Joseph Gersch Chief Operating Officer Secure64 Software Corporation _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop