On 2/9/12 01:25 , Lorenzo Colitti wrote: > On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 00:36, Joel jaeggli <joelja@xxxxxxxxx > <mailto: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. > Sorry for being so droll, I found it hard to restrain myself. > > 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. I do not belive that the selective (inclusive) return of A or A + AAAA records on the basis of source address is likely to end on a particular day. It may well for you and some others, which is fine, or you may find it necessary again, or it may become a list of exclusions rather than inclusions. I belive you're on record indicating as much. In any event others may find it necessary. > 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. Invidual service operators like you and I are likely to make decisions on the basis of our instrumentation, we may well alter their behavior on a uni or multilateral basis, and some of us may do so for world ipv6 launch. ipv4/v6 Transition is not something with a flag day however, and I do not believe that the concerns embedded in the draft will be fundamentally altered on 6/6/12. > Does that make more sense? yes, that doesn't imply that we're in concert however. > Cheers, > Lorenzo _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf