Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ipv6-unique-local-addr-08.txt

[Margaret Wasserman <margaret@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Mark,

> 	Thats why I said the DNS section was a "cop out".  The DNS
> 	information hadn't been collected, distilled and put on
> 	paper.  I attempted to do that.
>
> 	* Don't publish ambigious addresses global.
> 	* It is unwise (but not wrong) to publish unreachable addresses.
> 	* Don't let reverse queries for private address space leak.
> 	  That it is common to leak the private net next to you and
> 	  you should stop that as well as what you are using.
> 	* That you can the apex of the reverse zone for private space
> 	  to create your own deleation tree (e.g. 10.in-addr.arpa,
> 	  168.192.in-addr.arpa) and not have to slave all the reverse
> 	  zones everywhere.

I agree that it would be good to document this information, but there 
are three reasons why I personally don't think that the ULA document 
is the right place to do this:

(1) This is operational information, not part of the specification of 
these addresses, so it would be better published in a BCP.

(2) The IPv6 WG is not the best group to make broad statements about 
what should/should not be included in the global DNS.  The dnsop WG 
would be a better place for this work.

(3) The ULA document has already passed IETF LC and is in the IESG. 
It should be re-opened for by the WG for critical technical flaws at 
this point, so I don't think it makes sense to use this document as a 
vehicle for publishing general information about how to handle local 
addresses in the DNS.

We need to come to some closure on how/if the DNS portions of this 
document need to change before publication, and we need to do it 
quickly because this document is already in IESG evaluation.

Brian Haberman, I think you are serving as WG chair for this 
document, right?  Could you possibly figure out if this conversation 
has raised any new issues that need to be considered after IETF LC? 
If so, can you figure out if there is any IPv6 consensus regarding 
what to do about them?

I need to understand if it is necessary to delay this document for 
resolution of this issue.

Thanks,
Margaret



--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@xxxxxxxx
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------