Telechat Review of draft-ietf-6man-sids-05
review-ietf-6man-sids-05-dnsdir-telechat-spacek-2024-01-15-00
Request | Review of | draft-ietf-6man-sids |
---|---|---|
Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 06) | |
Type | Telechat Review | |
Team | DNS Directorate (dnsdir) | |
Deadline | 2024-01-25 | |
Requested | 2024-01-11 | |
Requested by | Éric Vyncke | |
Authors | Suresh Krishnan | |
I-D last updated | 2024-01-15 | |
Completed reviews |
Dnsdir Telechat review of -05
by Petr Špaček
(diff)
Secdir Telechat review of -05 by Linda Dunbar (diff) Intdir Telechat review of -05 by Juan-Carlos Zúñiga (diff) Opsdir Last Call review of -03 by Yingzhen Qu (diff) Secdir Last Call review of -03 by Linda Dunbar (diff) Genart Last Call review of -03 by Reese Enghardt (diff) |
|
Comments |
As there is a very minor DNS part in the whole document, this should be an easy review. Thanks, -éric |
|
Assignment | Reviewer | Petr Špaček |
State | Completed | |
Request | Telechat review on draft-ietf-6man-sids by DNS Directorate Assigned | |
Posted at | https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsdir/TGDG2jYIu_H9qKOGh9VCMJ6bG_k | |
Reviewed revision | 05 (document currently at 06) | |
Result | Ready w/issues | |
Completed | 2024-01-15 |
review-ietf-6man-sids-05-dnsdir-telechat-spacek-2024-01-15-00
I have been selected as the DNS Directorate reviewer for this draft. For more information about the DNS Directorate, please see https://wiki.ietf.org/en/group/dnsdir This document specifies very little in terms of DNS interaction. The only mention I detected is this: > 5. Allocation of a Global Unicast Prefix for SIDs > At the present time, AAAA and PTR records for addresses assigned from this block SHOULD NOT be installed in the global DNS [RFC8499]. Keeping my lack of understanding of SRv6 in mind, it sounds fine, or at least safe. From the DNS point of view, it's unclear why AAAA and PTR record types were singled out. IPv6-like addresses can conceivably appear in other record types (currently at least HTTPS and SVCB), and more types can be added tomorrow. I would recommend a more generic phrasing, e.g.: "At the present time, global DNS [RFC8499] SHOULD NOT reference addresses assigned from this block." Thank you for your time. Petr Špaček