In message <4B545BEB-EA0E-4BA8-A45E-15AF12CDB1EC@xxxxxxxxx>, Jari Arkko writes: > I wanted to come back to the status of the discussions. > > We have an ongoing discussion of the changes Marc made on the -02. My > read of the feedback is that the update has done the right things, but: > > 1) Paul Hoffman's clarifications & editorial changes seem useful, but I > would like to hear what others think. Marc, you should respond to those > as well. > > 2) Mark Andrews' suggestion of further requirements regarding reserved > bits was discussed, but should proceed separately. > > 3) Mark Andrews' suggestion of further requirements regarding EDNS0 has > not been discussed, but I would note that at this stage we should not add > major requirements without substantial community portion indicating that > this is needed. I'm not hearing it. I suspect this is because the root servers actually correctly implement EDNS. If a server was changed to a implementation that failed to correctly implement EDNS that would change. There are a number of drafts before dnsop at the moment that require EDNS to be properly implement. I'm a co-author of one of them. > 4) I've also received feedback from IESG members that the text about > moving 2870 to Historic in Section 1.1 could be problematic. While I'm > not sure that is necessarily the case, I think this draft merely replaces > 2870, so I am not sure we need to say anything more. I have confirmed > with the IAB that it does not believe the part about moving 2870 to > Historic is necessary. Does anyone object to this change? > > With regards to the earlier discussions in the last call in the summer, > Marc's message discussed some of the things where an agreement was > clearly found. I don't think I need to report further on that. However, I > wanted to highlight a few other items: > > I believe there is rough consensus to publish an updated BCP (subject to > some detailed clarifications, still ongoing). There was some discussion > about whether it is appropriate for the IETF to do this, but my read of > the discussion is that the topic was explored and that a reasonable > division of work between the RSSAC and IETF exists, even with some > roughness of the opinions within the group. The IETF role in this case is > to provide high-level requirements for the service. Specifically for this > service, even if some broader statements have been made about all nodes > previously. But is not our role to enforce anything or deal with the > operational issues. > > There was some discussion of the meaning of the requirements currently in > the document, and whether clarifying text was needed to specify whether > they apply to individual nodes or the service. Michael Richardsson (among > others) has supported the current text as it really is about the service. > This is another topic where there is some roughness in the group, but I > believe the initial question has been adequately answered and has at > least some support in the group. > > A big problem last summer was that we did not yet have a document from > the RSSAC. With the stable RSSAC document now available, it is possible > to proceed. > > From my read of the commentary, the following items may deserve further > thought. Marc, can you deal with these? > > * Joe Abley's comment about qualifying the requirement to answer queries > from any valid IP address with respect to operational events (such as > attacks). While I believe the operational issues are indeed in the RSSAC > scope, I think we should qualify our requirement to be subject to > operational issues. > > * Klaas Wieranga's Secdir review made a suggestion about privacy related > to root queries, and how caching mitigates some of the concerns. Text > could be added about this, although it is of course somewhat obvious > state of affairs. I'll leave it to the editor's discretion what to do > here. > > Jari -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka@xxxxxxx