On Tue, 8 Nov 2005, Olaf M. Kolkman wrote:
In the working group meeting I just mentioned that the IANA section of
draft-andrews-full-service-resolvers-01 should clearly mention who has change
control of the registry.
I'd suggest something along the lines "This registry can be amended through
IESG reviewed RFC publication" which is, as I've been informed, the highest
hurdle one can throw up in order to prevent unwanted modifications to the
'blacklist'.
I support the document.
It depends on what category draft-andrews-full-service-resolvers-01 is
aiming for. Given its nature, the target should maybe be BCP given
that we need IETF-wide review of this. Then updating the list should
require Standards Action. In any case, the IANA considerations need
to be appropriately spelled out.
Below are some editorial nits.
editorial
---------
Configuration Issues Facing Full Service DNS Resolvers In The Presence
of Private Network Addressing
draft-andrews-full-service-resolvers-01
==> the title etc. is not very intuitive compared to the abstract
site-local addresses howsever, sacrificial servers for C.E.F.IP6.ARPA
==> typo
255.255.255.255.IN-ADDR.ARPA /* IPv4 BROADCAST */
==> should the whole 255.IN-ADDR.ARPA be covered? should 0.0.0.0 be
covered ? what about site-local v4/v6 multicast addresses?
--
Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
.
dnsop resources:_____________________________________________________
web user interface: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/dnsop.html
mhonarc archive: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/dnsop/index.html
