Skip to main content

AS112 Nameserver Operations
draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc6304bis-06

Yes

(Brian Haberman)
(Joel Jaeggli)

No Objection

(Jari Arkko)
(Martin Stiemerling)
(Richard Barnes)
(Spencer Dawkins)
(Stephen Farrell)

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 04 and is now closed.

Brian Haberman Former IESG member
Yes
Yes (for -04) Unknown

                            
Joel Jaeggli Former IESG member
Yes
Yes (for -04) Unknown

                            
Adrian Farrel Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (2014-08-20 for -04) Unknown
I have no objection to the publication of this document, but I don't
think it is appropriate to say (as in 3.1.1) what RFC 6304 does.  This
document entirely replaces 6304.

It would be fine (desirable) to have a section somewhere (probably in 
App A) that captures the changes from 6304, but this document should 
otherwise simply describe AS112 Nameserver Operations so that there is
no need to feel dependent on the old RFC.
Jari Arkko Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -04) Unknown

                            
Kathleen Moriarty Former IESG member
(was Discuss) No Objection
No Objection (2015-02-24) Unknown
I think this draft is a good idea and it makes perfect sense to blackhole traffic like this.  
I was glad to see the security consideration for leaking host information. Thanks for adding in the additional warnings that this data may also be logged per my prior discuss.
Martin Stiemerling Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -04) Unknown

                            
Pete Resnick Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (2014-08-21 for -04) Unknown
Seems like a fine document. A few comments:

1. This document seems like a fine set of operational guidelines that have community consensus. Why isn't it being published as a BCP? Seems like AS112 in general should get its own BCP number and these documents ought to be published under it. Yeah, I know that 6304 was Informational, but we don't need to repeat mistakes, eh?

(Perhaps we need a new designation: Operational Practices and Guidelines.)

2. Logging is mentioned in one of the configuration examples, but it sure would be nice to have a few sentences on it. I could see saying something like, "Keeping a log of entities that are improperly querying would allow for the wagging finger of shame to be shook in front of bad implementers. You probably only want a single log entry per bad actor; they will send you lots of queries, and no need to have huge logs." Etc.

3. "The IANA is directed…" Pushy, aren't we? :-) I generally say, "IANA is requested…" or the like. No, it doesn't really make a difference.
Richard Barnes Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -04) Unknown

                            
Spencer Dawkins Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -04) Unknown

                            
Stephen Farrell Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -04) Unknown

                            
Ted Lemon Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (2014-08-21 for -04) Unknown
The abstract on this document is about three paragraphs too long.   Is there any way to shorten it?