On Mar 20, 2013, at 4:04 PM, SM <sm@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I might as well comment quickly about draft-housley-rfc2050bis-00. The draft is a good effort but it might need more work in my humble opinion.
>
> The intended status is Informational. Is there a reason for that?
The RFC is not intended to establish anything new, only to recognize
the existing agreements and practices of the IETF in this area.
> Why does the document obsolete RFC 2050? There is no explanation for that in the Abstract or the Introduction section.
The explanation is in Section 5 (Summary of Changes Since RFC 2050);
isn't that usual practice for an RFC which replaces another in entirety?
> In Section 3:
>
> "Reverse DNS: In situations where reverse DNS was used, the
> policies and practices of the Internet Numbers Registry System
> have included consideration of the technical and operational
> requirements posed by reverse DNS zone delegation [RFC3172]."
>
> According to RFC 5855:
>
> "The choice of operators for all nameservers concerned is beyond the
> scope of this document and is an IANA function that falls under the
> scope of Section 4 of the MoU between the IETF and ICANN [RFC2860]."
>
> Maybe referencing RFC 5855 would be better. It may be easier not to say anything about reverse DNS.
The text in RFC 5855 that you reference is with respect only to the
two top-level reverse domains, i.e. "all nameservers concerned" is
preceded by:
"1. IN-ADDR-SERVERS.ARPA to the nameservers listed in Section 2;
2. IP6-SERVERS.ARPA to the nameservers listed in Section 3."
> "Per the delineation of responsibility for Internet address policy
> issues specified in the IETF/IAB/ICANN MOU [RFC2860], discussions
> regarding the evolution of the Internet Numbers Registry System
> structure, policy, and processes are to take place within the ICANN
> framework and will respect ICANN's core values [ICANNBL]. These core
> values encourage broad, informed participation reflecting the
> functional, geographic, and cultural diversity of the Internet at all
> levels of policy development and decision-making, as well as the
> delegation of coordination functions and recognition of the policy
> roles of other responsible entities that reflect the interests of
> affected parties. The discussions regarding Internet Numbers
> Registry evolution must also continue to consider the overall
> Internet address architecture and technical goals referenced in this
> document."
>
> Could someone please translate the above in plain English? What's the IETF angle in all that?
It looks to be plain English to me... can you be more specific
about what part of the text which is problematic?
> Why should I read RFC 6484 to understand draft-housley-rfc2050bis-00?
I believe this is a trailing reference that should be deleted at this
point.
Thanks for the comments!
/John
Disclaimers: My views alone. Use care in opening; contents may have
shifted during electronic flight.