Discovery of the IPv6 Prefix Used for IPv6 Address Synthesis
draft-ietf-behave-nat64-discovery-heuristic-17
Discuss
Yes
(Martin Stiemerling)
(Wesley Eddy)
No Objection
(Adrian Farrel)
(Barry Leiba)
(Benoît Claise)
(Brian Haberman)
(Gonzalo Camarillo)
(Pete Resnick)
(Ron Bonica)
(Sean Turner)
(Stewart Bryant)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 13 and is now closed.
Russ Housley Former IESG member
Discuss
Discuss
[Treat as non-blocking comment]
(2013-02-18 for -13)
Unknown
This DISCUSS position builds on comments from the Gen-ART Review by
Brian Carpenter on 15-Feb-2013.
(1) This document says:
"A day will come when this tool is no longer needed. At that point
the best suited techniques for implementing an exit strategy will be
documented."
I hope that day comes, and comes soon. That said, the second sentence
really does not tell an implementer anything. Why is any strategy
other than an "off" switch required? The answer to that question may
help an implementer decide what to include in their code. If there
are no more IPv4-only services, there will be (observably) no traffic
in the NAT64 box.
(2) The IANA Considerations in this document says:
"The well-known domain name could be, for example, "ipv4only.arpa"."
If this is an example, then you cannot refer to it unconditionally
earlier in the document. Please make an explicit request to IANA for
this exact name. Otherwise, you need to replace all occurrences of
ipv4only.arpa by FQDN-TBD and have the RFC Editor insert the
IANA-assigned FQDN.
(3) The same thing applies to 192.0.0.170 and 192.0.0.171. Either
they need to be IP-ADDR-TBD1 and IP-ADDR-TBD2 in the text, or you
need an explicit request to IANA.
(4) Who populates the DNS with the RRs for ipv4only.arpa? That
responsibility needs to be defined.
Martin Stiemerling Former IESG member
(was No Objection)
Yes
Yes
(for -16)
Unknown
Wesley Eddy Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(for -13)
Unknown
Adrian Farrel Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -13)
Unknown
Barry Leiba Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -13)
Unknown
Benoît Claise Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -13)
Unknown
Brian Haberman Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -13)
Unknown
Gonzalo Camarillo Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -13)
Unknown
Pete Resnick Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -13)
Unknown
Ralph Droms Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
(2013-03-07 for -14)
Unknown
Thanks for adding text regarding registration of special use domain names.
Ron Bonica Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -13)
Unknown
Sean Turner Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -13)
Unknown
Stephen Farrell Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
(2013-02-25 for -14)
Unknown
- 3.1.2, step 2: I thought walking the DNS tree like this was frowned upon. I'd be interested in knowing why its ok in this case to chase CNAME/DNAME but not in other cases. (I'm not objecting, just trying to understand.) - 3.2, "hoping the problem is temporary"? That seems odd. Is it really desirable? - IANA stuff - given that we're moving the special purpose address registries from RFCs to be IANA-only, do any of the allocation requests here need to change? (Or, when do we stop referring to 5735 & 5736 and start referring to the new IANA registry?)
Stewart Bryant Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -13)
Unknown