Discovery of the IPv6 Prefix Used for IPv6 Address Synthesis
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 13 and is now closed.
(Russ Housley) Discuss
Discuss (2013-02-18 for -13)
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.
Comment (2013-02-18 for -13)
The Gen-ART Review by Brian Carpenter on 15-Feb-2013 raises this issue. I have taken the crux of Brian's comment and added by thoughts to it. I do not consider the comment blocking, but I would like the authors to consider it. This document definitely cannot be understood by anyone who has not first understood the NAT64 and DNS64 documents. It might be useful to state this explicitly in the first paragraph.
(Wesley Eddy) Yes
(Martin Stiemerling) (was No Objection) Yes
(Ron Bonica) No Objection
(Stewart Bryant) No Objection
(Gonzalo Camarillo) No Objection
(Benoît Claise) No Objection
(Ralph Droms) (was Discuss) No Objection
Comment (2013-03-07 for -14)
Thanks for adding text regarding registration of special use domain names.
(Adrian Farrel) No Objection
(Stephen Farrell) (was Discuss) No Objection
Comment (2013-02-25 for -14)
- 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?)