>>>>> On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 17:35:44 +0900,
>>>>> JINMEI Tatuya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>>> draft-morishita-dnsop-misbehavior-against-aaaa-00.txt
>>> a WG document. This is a very important issue to cover.
>>>
>>> Agreement/objections?
>> Thank you for your comment. I'm glad to read this.
>> I agree of course.
>> Jinmei-san, do we update the draft according to the current situation?
> I don't have an objection to making our draft as a wg document, and
> yes, I'm willing to work on updating the draft if necessary.
> Before doing this, however, I'd like to be sure about several points.
(snip)
As far as I remember, I've not seen any direct responses to my
questions. But my understanding in this (almost stale) thread is that
the draft has been adopted as a wg document and the goal is to publish
it as an informational RFC.
Based on this understanding, I've revised draft addressing comments so
far. I've seen two major issues, which I'd like to be sure about the
resolution before submitting the revised draft:
1. the misbehavior described in the draft is not specific to AAAA
queries, as pointed out by several people.
We could change the text to be generic (and probably change the title
accordingly). However, I'd rather concentrate on the AAAA cases, and
would like to propose the following change:
- add the following paragraph to introduction and remove similar
notes in the succeeding sections. Other parts of the document,
including the title, will not change.
Note that the misbehavior is not specific to AAAA RRs. In fact, all
known examples also apply to the cases of queries for NS, SOA, and MX
RRs. The authors even believe this can be generalized for all types
of queries other than those for A RRs. However, this memo
concentrates on the case for AAAA queries, since the problem is
particularly severe for resolvers that support IPv6, which thus
affects many end users. On the other hand, resolvers at end users
normally never issue NS, SOA, or MX queries, and the problem is
relatively minor.
2. if this document is ever published, it should not contain
particular implementation or domain names.
As I said before, I agree on this point. At the moment, however, it
should be more informative to have concrete examples. So, I'd like to
propose the following approach:
- make a separate appendix and put all concrete examples there.
When the document is ready to be published, we'll simply remove
the appendix.
====
Assuming my understanding about the current situation is correct and
the proposed changes are okay for others, my plan is:
1. submit a revised draft as
draft-ietf-dnsop-misbehavior-against-aaaa-00.txt
which still contains concrete examples in the appendix.
2. collect comments on the revised draft, and revise the draft once
more based on the comments. This time the appendix will be
removed.
3. ask the wg for a last call
4. (assuming there will be no critical issues in the last call) send
the draft to the IESG (after a minor revision if necessary)
If I misunderstand something, please kindly point it out. Thanks in
advance,
JINMEI, Tatuya
Communication Platform Lab.
Corporate R&D Center, Toshiba Corp.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
.
dnsop resources:_____________________________________________________
web user interface: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/dnsop.html
mhonarc archive: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/dnsop/index.html
