DNS Resource Records for the Identifier-Locator Network Protocol (ILNP)
draft-irtf-rrg-ilnp-dns-06

IANA has reviewed draft-irtf-rrg-ilnp-dns and has the following  comments:

IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there is
a single IANA action which must be completed.

In the Resource Record (RR) TYPEs subregistry of the Domain Name System (DNS)
Parameters registry located at:

http://www.iana.org/assignments/dns-parameters

four new data RRs will be registered as follows:

Type: NID
Value: [ tbd on assignment ]
Meaning: INLP-Capable Node Identifiers
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Type: L32
Value: [ tbd on assignment ]
Meaning: 32-bit Locator values for ILNPv4-capable nodes
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Type: L64
Value: [ tbd on assignment ]
Meaning: 64-bit Locator values for ILNPv6-capable nodes
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Type: LP
Value: [ tbd on assignment ]
Meaning: INLP Subnetwork Name
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

IANA understands that this is the only action required upon approval
of this document.

Note: The actions requested in this document will not be completed
until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC.
This message is only to confirm what actions will be performed.

[Ballot discuss]
I think the IESG 5742 review should mention that this work is related to work done in LISP and HIP. Presumably, the suggested additions to DNS make it related to DNSEXT as well.

[Ballot comment]
The LISP documents (currently in the RFC Editor Queue for publication
as Experimental RFCs in the IETF Stream) have clear and unambiguous
text to caution the user about the unknown side-effects of conducting
the experiment on the Internet. For example, draft-ietf-lisp-23 says:

  This experimental specification has areas that require additional
  experience and measurement.  It is NOT RECOMMENDED for deployment
  beyond experimental situations.  Results of experimentation may lead
  to modifications and enhancements of protocol mechanisms defined in
  this document.  See Section 15 for specific, known issues that are in           
  need of further work during development, implementation, and
  experimentation.

  An examination of the implications of LISP on Internet traffic,
  applications, routers, and security is for future study.  This
  analysis will explain what role LISP can play in scalable routing and
  will also look at scalability and levels of state required for
  encapsulation, decapsulation, liveness, and so on.

It seems to me highly desirable that similar caveats be applied to this
work and added to the front of all ILNP documents. I strongly urge the
authors and IRSG to apply such text.

this is a request for the IESG to perform an RFC5742 review of the following drafts describing ILNP from the RRG, to be published as RFCs on the IRTF Stream:

- draft-irtf-rrg-ilnp-adv-02 (Experimental)
- draft-irtf-rrg-ilnp-arch-02 (Experimental)
- draft-irtf-rrg-ilnp-arp-02 (Experimental)
- draft-irtf-rrg-ilnp-dns-02 (Experimental)
- draft-irtf-rrg-ilnp-eng-02 (Experimental)
- draft-irtf-rrg-ilnp-icmpv4-02 (Experimental)
- draft-irtf-rrg-ilnp-icmpv6-02 (Experimental)
- draft-irtf-rrg-ilnp-noncev6-02 (Experimental)
- draft-irtf-rrg-ilnp-v4opts-02 (Experimental)

These documents have been approved for publication by the IRSG. See http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/group/irtf/trac/ticket/42 for details on prior reviews. Please copy all correspondence to the document shepherd, Tony Li (tony.li@tony.li).

Also, please note that several of these documents require IESG Approval for codepoint registrations in various IANA registries. In the process of reviewing these documents under RFC5742 (i.e., for conflicts with IETF work), please also approve the necessary codepoints to enable experimentation with ILNP.

Thanks,
Lars