On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 00:52, Livingood, Jason <
jason_living...@cable.comcast.com> wrote:
> To be more specific, at least section 5.5 ("it is unclear
> how implementers will judge when the network conditions will have
> changed sufficiently to justify turning off DNS Resolver Whitelisting
> and/or what the process and timing will be for discontinuing this
> practice") is now incorrect. It *is* clear, and it's what those
> implementers are doing as part of World IPv6 Launch.
>
> Does that make more sense?
>
>
> As the author, if it helps I plan to make the following change to
> Section 5.5 following the conclusion of IETF Last Call. I ran this by a few
> folks already and it seems broadly acceptable (have not heard from Lorenzo
> yet though).
>
> Jason
>
> *CURRENT 5.5: *
> 5.5. Turning Off DNS Resolver Whitelisting
>
> Domains that choose to implement DNS Resolver Whitelisting generally
> consider it to be a temporary measure. It is unclear how implementers will
> judge when the network conditions will have changed sufficiently to justify
> turning off DNS Resolver Whitelisting and/or what the process and timing
> will be for discontinuing this practice, though the extent of IPv6
> deployment to end users in networks, the state of IPv6-related impairment,
> and the maturity of IPv6 operations are all clearly factors. However,
> implementers may wish to take into consideration that, as a practical
> matter, it will be impossible to get to a point where there are no longer
> any IPv6-related impairments; some reasonably small number of hosts will
> inevitably be left behind as end users elect not to upgrade them or as some
> hosts are incapable of being upgraded.
> *PROPOSED 5.5 (NEW TEXT IN ALL CAPS):*
> 5.5. Turning Off DNS Resolver Whitelisting
>
> Domains that choose to implement DNS Resolver Whitelisting generally
> consider it to be a temporary measure. It is unclear how implementers will
> judge when the network conditions will have changed sufficiently to justify
> turning off DNS Resolver Whitelisting and/or what the process and timing
> will be for discontinuing this practice, though the extent of IPv6
> deployment to end users in networks, the state of IPv6-related impairment,
> and the maturity of IPv6 operations are all clearly factors. However, *SOME
> IMPLEMENTERS HAVE ANNOUNCED THAT THEY PLAN TO PERMANENTLY TURN OFF
> WHITELISTING BEGINNING ON WORLD IPV6 DAY IN JUNE 2012 [REFERENCE]. IN ANY
> CASE*, implementers may wish to take into consideration that, as a
> practical matter, it will be impossible to get to a point where there are
> no longer any IPv6-related impairments; some reasonably small number of
> hosts will inevitably be left behind as end users elect not to upgrade them
> or as some hosts are incapable of being upgraded.
> <eom>
>
I think the suggested change does not go far enough. The
"high-service-level domains" that prompted this draft to be written, and
all the implementers I'm currently aware of, are decommissioning the
practice.
So the paragraph that states, "It is unclear how implementers will judge
when the network conditions will have changed sufficiently to justify
turning off DNS Resolver Whitelisting and/or what the process and timing
will be for discontinuing this practice" is still incorrect. Can you just
remove the paragraph and start the section with "Many implementers have
announced that they plan to permanently turn off whitelisting beginning
on..." ?
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
