On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 00:36, Joel jaeggli <joelja@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Ops is not marketing.
And if I were looking for a marketing venue, a standards body that produces ASCII text documents read by a handful of engineers would not be high on my list. This is not about marketing.
If you're saying some flag day makes the contents of the document no
longer operationally relevant after a given date, I'll take the point
but disagree.
I think you're missing my point.
It seems to me that approximately 30% of the non-biolerplate text in this draft discusses DNS whitelisting. (And in fact, in its original form the draft entirely on DNS whitelisting - hence the filename. The rest was added later.)
Whitelisting is a practice relevant to a few large websites (since nobody else is using it). It so happens that the websites that employ this practice are going to stop using it, all together. Given the cost and implications, I'd say practice is unlikely to be resurrected.
So, you decide to tell the whole story, and talk about whitelisting *and* World IPv6 Launch. Or you can decide that whitelisting will soon be irrelevant, and not talk about either whitelisting or World IPv6 Launch. But you can't talk about whitelisting without talking about World IPv6 Launch, because if you do, your document is missing the key piece "how do you remove the whitelist", and that's a disservice to its readers.
To be more specific, at least section 5.5 ("it is unclear how implementers will judge when the network conditions will have changed sufficiently to justify turning off DNS Resolver Whitelisting and/or what the process and timing will be for discontinuing this practice") is now incorrect. It *is* clear, and it's what those implementers are doing as part of World IPv6 Launch.
Does that make more sense?
Cheers,
Lorenzo
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf