Reverse DNS in IPv6 for Internet Service Providers
draft-ietf-dnsop-isp-ip6rdns-07
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2018-11-26
|
07 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48 |
2018-11-13
|
07 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from RFC-EDITOR |
2018-11-12
|
07 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from EDIT |
2018-10-02
|
07 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to EDIT |
2018-10-02
|
07 | (System) | IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent |
2018-10-02
|
07 | (System) | Announcement was received by RFC Editor |
2018-10-01
|
07 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to No IANA Actions from In Progress |
2018-10-01
|
07 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
2018-10-01
|
07 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent |
2018-10-01
|
07 | Amy Vezza | IESG has approved the document |
2018-10-01
|
07 | Amy Vezza | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2018-10-01
|
07 | Amy Vezza | Ballot approval text was generated |
2018-09-27
|
07 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead |
2018-09-27
|
07 | Alissa Cooper | [Ballot comment] Please respond to the Gen-ART reviewer. He had valuable comments. |
2018-09-27
|
07 | Alissa Cooper | Ballot comment text updated for Alissa Cooper |
2018-09-27
|
07 | Alissa Cooper | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alissa Cooper |
2018-09-27
|
07 | Benjamin Kaduk | [Ballot comment] Thanks for the well-written document! I wrote down some thoughts I had while reading, but they should be treated as very weak suggestions … [Ballot comment] Thanks for the well-written document! I wrote down some thoughts I had while reading, but they should be treated as very weak suggestions and no pressure to apply them is implied. Section 2.1 DNS administrators should consider the uses for reverse DNS records and the number of services affecting the number of users when evaluating this option. nit: maybe this could be qualified as "number of services relying on PTR records", as otherwise it can be read as a bit of a non sequitur. Section 2.3 Administrators may want to consider user creativity if they provide host names, as described in Section 5.4 "User Creativity." Perhaps "the risks of user creativity"? Section 2.3.1 This option may be scalable, although registration following an outage may cause significant load, and hosts using privacy extensions [RFC4941] may update records daily. [...] I think I've heard of deployments that update more often than daily, though it's unclear that there's a need for this document to mention such possibilities. Section 4 There are six common uses for PTR lookups: I'm a little uncomfortable asserting this as a complete and exhaustive listing in an Informational document, but I also can't dispute its veracity. I'll trust that the authors and WG have done sufficient research and not request any change here. For residential users, if these four use cases are important to the ISP, the administrator will then need to consider how to provide PTR records. ... but I do have to wonder which four of the six the ISPs are supposed to be considering. A valid negative response (such as NXDOMAIN) is a valid response, if the four cases above are not essential; delegation where no name server exists should be avoided. ... and similarly here. Section 5.1 Providing location information in PTR records is useful for troubleshooting, law enforcement, and geolocation services, but for the same reasons can be considered sensitive information. It may be worth clarifying that the sensitive nature is an argument for not publishing, since there aren't really well-established schemes for filtering access to the relevant DNS records. Section 5.3 Maybe say something about "for use in other protocols" if we're not trying to limit to DNSKEY and friends? |
2018-09-27
|
07 | Benjamin Kaduk | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Benjamin Kaduk |
2018-09-27
|
07 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Telechat review by SECDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Derek Atkins. |
2018-09-27
|
07 | Martin Vigoureux | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Martin Vigoureux |
2018-09-26
|
07 | Terry Manderson | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Terry Manderson |
2018-09-26
|
07 | Suresh Krishnan | [Ballot comment] * Section 1.2. "and may be short-lived." Maybe worth adding a reference to RFC4941 here (already in the references). "and may be short-lived. … |
2018-09-26
|
07 | Suresh Krishnan | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Suresh Krishnan |
2018-09-26
|
07 | Amanda Baber | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - No Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed |
2018-09-26
|
07 | Alvaro Retana | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alvaro Retana |
2018-09-26
|
07 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - No Actions Needed |
2018-09-26
|
07 | Lee Howard | New version available: draft-ietf-dnsop-isp-ip6rdns-07.txt |
2018-09-26
|
07 | (System) | New version approved |
2018-09-26
|
07 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Lee Howard |
2018-09-26
|
07 | Lee Howard | Uploaded new revision |
2018-09-26
|
06 | Ben Campbell | [Ballot comment] Abstract: Can "commonly provide IN-ADDR-ARPA information" be stated more conceptually in the abstract? |
2018-09-26
|
06 | Ben Campbell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ben Campbell |
2018-09-26
|
06 | Alexey Melnikov | [Ballot comment] I feel a bit underwhelmed by this document: it defines problems, list some solutions, but doesn't always provide an advice. Statements like "The … [Ballot comment] I feel a bit underwhelmed by this document: it defines problems, list some solutions, but doesn't always provide an advice. Statements like "The string of inferences is questionable, and may become unneeded if other means for evaluating trustworthiness (such as positive reputations) become predominant in IPv6." are true, but doesn't really help me if I need to solve the problem. Nit: CPE acronym is used without being defined. |
2018-09-26
|
06 | Alexey Melnikov | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alexey Melnikov |
2018-09-25
|
06 | Adam Roach | [Ballot comment] Thanks for the thought and work that went into this well-written document. I have only two relatively minor comments. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- §2.1: > For … [Ballot comment] Thanks for the thought and work that went into this well-written document. I have only two relatively minor comments. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- §2.1: > For best user experience, then, it is important to > return a response, rather than have a lame delegation. In light of [1] (and its ensuing thread) and [2], the authors may wish to consider a different term than "lame" for this description. ____ [1] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/W6wSh3TDfetVY6eeDAu8FNcCKeA [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_disability-related_terms_with_negative_connotations --------------------------------------------------------------------------- §2.5: If I read things correctly, A naïve implementation of what is described in this section would result in the nameserver using some amount of state for each IPv6 PTR record that was queried, for the duration of the TTL. Given the extraordinary expanse of IPv6 space that such a server is likely delegated, it seems that there's an attack in here whereby an attacker asks for an arbitrary number of PTR records within a single server's range, each resulting in additional memory consumption for whatever time period the TTL represents. There probably should be some text in here warning implementations to guard against such attacks either by limiting such storage, or by generating such names in a deterministic way such that they don't require cacheing or pre-populating AAAA records (instead generating them on the fly) |
2018-09-25
|
06 | Adam Roach | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Adam Roach |
2018-09-25
|
06 | Deborah Brungard | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Deborah Brungard |
2018-09-25
|
06 | (System) | IESG state changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call |
2018-09-21
|
06 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Telechat review by OPSDIR is assigned to Susan Hares |
2018-09-21
|
06 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Telechat review by OPSDIR is assigned to Susan Hares |
2018-09-20
|
06 | Mirja Kühlewind | [Ballot comment] One comment on terminology: I don't think "transmission control" is actually a well-defined term, besides that TCP stands for transmission control protocol. However, … [Ballot comment] One comment on terminology: I don't think "transmission control" is actually a well-defined term, besides that TCP stands for transmission control protocol. However, the services TCP provides are usually called connection-orientation and reliability (and flow and congestion control aso.). I guess what's most import in your case is reliability…. |
2018-09-20
|
06 | Mirja Kühlewind | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Mirja Kühlewind |
2018-09-18
|
06 | Amanda Baber | (Via drafts-eval@iana.org): |
2018-09-14
|
06 | Dan Romascanu | Request for Telechat review by GENART Completed: Ready with Nits. Reviewer: Dan Romascanu. Sent review to list. |
2018-09-13
|
06 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Dan Romascanu |
2018-09-13
|
06 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Dan Romascanu |
2018-09-13
|
06 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - No Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed |
2018-09-13
|
06 | Sabrina Tanamal | (Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: The IANA Functions Operator has reviewed draft-ietf-dnsop-isp-ip6rdns-06, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments: We … (Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: The IANA Functions Operator has reviewed draft-ietf-dnsop-isp-ip6rdns-06, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments: We understand that this document doesn't require any registry actions. While it's often helpful for a document's IANA Considerations section to remain in place upon publication even if there are no actions, if the authors strongly prefer to remove it, we do not object. If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible. Thank you, Sabrina Tanamal Senior IANA Services Specialist |
2018-09-12
|
06 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Telechat review by SECDIR is assigned to Derek Atkins |
2018-09-12
|
06 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Telechat review by SECDIR is assigned to Derek Atkins |
2018-09-11
|
06 | Cindy Morgan | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2018-09-27 |
2018-09-11
|
06 | Cindy Morgan | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed |
2018-09-11
|
06 | Cindy Morgan | The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2018-09-25): From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: tjw.ietf@gmail.com, draft-ietf-dnsop-isp-ip6rdns@ietf.org, dnsop-chairs@ietf.org, Benno Overeinder , … The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2018-09-25): From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: tjw.ietf@gmail.com, draft-ietf-dnsop-isp-ip6rdns@ietf.org, dnsop-chairs@ietf.org, Benno Overeinder , dnsop@ietf.org, Tim Wicinski , Suzanne Woolf , warren@kumari.net Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: (Reverse DNS in IPv6 for Internet Service Providers) to Informational RFC The IESG has received a request from the Domain Name System Operations WG (dnsop) to consider the following document: - 'Reverse DNS in IPv6 for Internet Service Providers' as Informational RFC The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2018-09-25. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. Abstract In IPv4, Internet Service Providers (ISPs) commonly provide IN- ADDR.ARPA information for their customers by prepopulating the zone with one PTR record for every available address. This practice does not scale in IPv6. This document analyzes different approaches and considerations for ISPs in managing the IP6.ARPA zone. The file can be obtained via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-isp-ip6rdns/ IESG discussion can be tracked via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-isp-ip6rdns/ballot/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. |
2018-09-11
|
06 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested |
2018-09-11
|
06 | Warren Kumari | Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown |
2018-09-11
|
06 | Warren Kumari | Last call was requested |
2018-09-11
|
06 | Warren Kumari | Last call announcement was generated |
2018-09-11
|
06 | Warren Kumari | IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation::AD Followup |
2018-09-11
|
06 | Warren Kumari | Ballot has been issued |
2018-09-11
|
06 | Warren Kumari | Ballot approval text was generated |
2018-09-11
|
06 | Warren Kumari | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Warren Kumari |
2018-09-11
|
06 | Warren Kumari | Created "Approve" ballot |
2018-09-11
|
06 | Warren Kumari | Ballot writeup was changed |
2018-09-05
|
06 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed |
2018-09-05
|
06 | Lee Howard | New version available: draft-ietf-dnsop-isp-ip6rdns-06.txt |
2018-09-05
|
06 | (System) | New version approved |
2018-09-05
|
06 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Lee Howard |
2018-09-05
|
06 | Lee Howard | Uploaded new revision |
2018-08-26
|
05 | Warren Kumari | https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsop/current/msg24018.html (forgot to update substate when completing AD review) |
2018-08-26
|
05 | Warren Kumari | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from AD Evaluation |
2018-07-21
|
05 | Warren Kumari | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested |
2018-07-18
|
05 | Tim Wicinski | 1. Summary Review of draft-ietf-dnsop-isp-ip6rdns Document Shepherd: Tim Wicinski Area Director: Warren Kumari Document Type: This document is intended to be Informational. It intends … 1. Summary Review of draft-ietf-dnsop-isp-ip6rdns Document Shepherd: Tim Wicinski Area Director: Warren Kumari Document Type: This document is intended to be Informational. It intends to give guidance to Internet Service Providers (ISPs) on how to manage PTR records with IPv6. 2. Review and Consensus This document was reviewed pretty extensively. There were several issues brought up during the document, which the authors and the working group were able to resolve over time. Since the document presents operational guidance, there is no specific implementations needed. 3. Intellectual Property There is no IPR related to this document. 4. Other Points There are no downard references in this document. There are no IANA considerations for this document. The only Nit with the document is this: The document seems to lack a both a reference to RFC 2119 and the recommended RFC 2119 boilerplate, even if it appears to use RFC 2119 keywords. RFC 2119 keyword, line 322: '...erior interfaces MUST NOT be processed...' ----- Checklist This section is not meant to be submitted, but is here as a useful checklist of things the document shepherd is expected to have verified before publication is requested from the responsible Area Director. If the answers to any of these is "no", please explain the situation in the body of the writeup. X Does the shepherd stand behind the document and think the document is ready for publication? X Is the correct RFC type indicated in the title page header? X Is the abstract both brief and sufficient, and does it stand alone as a brief summary? X Is the intent of the document accurately and adequately explained in the introduction? X Have all required formal reviews (MIB Doctor, Media Type, URI, etc.) been requested and/or completed? X Has the shepherd performed automated checks -- idnits (see http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist), checks of BNF rules, XML code and schemas, MIB definitions, and so on -- and determined that the document passes the tests? (In general, nits should be fixed before the document is sent to the IESG. If there are reasons that some remain (false positives, perhaps, or abnormal things that are necessary for this particular document), explain them.) X Has each author stated that their direct, personal knowledge of any IPR related to this document has already been disclosed, in conformance with BCPs 78 and 79? X Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative, and does the shepherd agree with how they have been classified? N/A - Are all normative references made to documents that are ready for advancement and are otherwise in a clear state? N/A - If publication of this document changes the status of any existing RFCs, are those RFCs listed on the title page header, and are the changes listed in the abstract and discussed (explained, not just mentioned) in the introduction? N/A - If this is a "bis" document, have all of the errata been considered? N/A - IANA Considerations: - Are the IANA Considerations clear and complete? Remember that IANA have to understand unambiguously what's being requested, so they can perform the required actions. - Are all protocol extensions that the document makes associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries? - Are all IANA registries referred to by their exact names (check them in http://www.iana.org/protocols/ to be sure)? - Have you checked that any registrations made by this document correctly follow the policies and procedures for the appropriate registries? - For registrations that require expert review (policies of Expert Review or Specification Required), have you or the working group had any early review done, to make sure the requests are ready for last call? - For any new registries that this document creates, has the working group actively chosen the allocation procedures and policies and discussed the alternatives? Have reasonable registry names been chosen (that will not be confused with those of other registries), and have the initial contents and valid value ranges been clearly specified? |
2018-07-18
|
05 | Tim Wicinski | Responsible AD changed to Warren Kumari |
2018-07-18
|
05 | Tim Wicinski | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up |
2018-07-18
|
05 | Tim Wicinski | IESG state changed to Publication Requested |
2018-07-18
|
05 | Tim Wicinski | IESG process started in state Publication Requested |
2018-07-18
|
05 | Tim Wicinski | Notification list changed to "Tim Wicinski" <tjw.ietf@gmail.com>, "Suzanne Woolf" <suzworldwide@gmail.com>, Benno Overeinder <benno@NLnetLabs.nl>, Tim Wicinski <tjw.ietf@gmail.com> from … Notification list changed to "Tim Wicinski" <tjw.ietf@gmail.com>, "Suzanne Woolf" <suzworldwide@gmail.com>, Benno Overeinder <benno@NLnetLabs.nl>, Tim Wicinski <tjw.ietf@gmail.com> from "Tim Wicinski" <tjw.ietf@gmail.com>, "Suzanne Woolf" <suzworldwide@gmail.com>, Benno Overeinder <benno@NLnetLabs.nl> |
2018-07-18
|
05 | Tim Wicinski | Document shepherd changed to Tim Wicinski |
2018-07-18
|
05 | Tim Wicinski | Changed document writeup |
2018-04-25
|
05 | Lee Howard | New version available: draft-ietf-dnsop-isp-ip6rdns-05.txt |
2018-04-25
|
05 | (System) | New version approved |
2018-04-25
|
05 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Lee Howard , dnsop-chairs@ietf.org |
2018-04-25
|
05 | Lee Howard | Uploaded new revision |
2018-04-18
|
04 | Tim Wicinski | IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from In WG Last Call |
2018-04-18
|
04 | Tim Wicinski | Notification list changed to "Tim Wicinski" <tjw.ietf@gmail.com>, "Suzanne Woolf" <suzworldwide@gmail.com>, Benno Overeinder <benno@NLnetLabs.nl> from "Tim Wicinski" <tjw.ietf@gmail.com>, … Notification list changed to "Tim Wicinski" <tjw.ietf@gmail.com>, "Suzanne Woolf" <suzworldwide@gmail.com>, Benno Overeinder <benno@NLnetLabs.nl> from "Tim Wicinski" <tjw.ietf@gmail.com>, "Suzanne Woolf" <suzworldwide@gmail.com> |
2018-04-18
|
04 | Tim Wicinski | Document shepherd changed to Benno Overeinder |
2017-11-14
|
04 | Lee Howard | New version available: draft-ietf-dnsop-isp-ip6rdns-04.txt |
2017-11-14
|
04 | (System) | New version approved |
2017-11-14
|
04 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Lee Howard |
2017-11-14
|
04 | Lee Howard | Uploaded new revision |
2017-09-16
|
03 | (System) | Document has expired |
2017-03-15
|
03 | Lee Howard | New version available: draft-ietf-dnsop-isp-ip6rdns-03.txt |
2017-03-15
|
03 | (System) | Forced post of submission |
2017-03-04
|
03 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: dnsop-chairs@ietf.org, Lee Howard |
2017-03-04
|
03 | Lee Howard | Uploaded new revision |
2017-01-19
|
02 | (System) | Document has expired |
2016-07-18
|
02 | Lee Howard | New version available: draft-ietf-dnsop-isp-ip6rdns-02.txt |
2016-05-24
|
01 | Tim Wicinski | IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document |
2016-04-25
|
01 | Tim Wicinski | Notification list changed to "Tim Wicinski" <tjw.ietf@gmail.com>, "Suzanne Woolf" <suzworldwide@gmail.com> from "Tim Wicinski" <tjw.ietf@gmail.com> |
2016-04-25
|
01 | Tim Wicinski | Document shepherd changed to Suzanne Woolf |
2015-12-22
|
01 | Lee Howard | New version available: draft-ietf-dnsop-isp-ip6rdns-01.txt |
2015-12-02
|
00 | Tim Wicinski | Notification list changed to "Tim Wicinski" <tjw.ietf@gmail.com> |
2015-12-02
|
00 | Tim Wicinski | Document shepherd changed to Tim Wicinski |
2015-10-16
|
00 | Tim Wicinski | Intended Status changed to Informational from None |
2015-10-16
|
00 | Tim Wicinski | This document now replaces draft-howard-isp-ip6rdns instead of None |
2015-10-16
|
00 | Lee Howard | New version available: draft-ietf-dnsop-isp-ip6rdns-00.txt |