Adding 100.64.0.0/10 Prefixes to the IPv4 Locally-Served DNS Zones Registry
draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc6598-rfc6303-05

As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Shepherd Write-Up.

Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 24 February 2012.

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)?  Why
is this the proper type of RFC?  Is this type of RFC indicated in the
title page header?

BCP as indicated in the datatracker.

(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement
Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent
examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved
documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections:

Technical Summary

This document adds the reverse address zones for 100.64.0.0/10 to the "Locally Served DNS Zones Registry." This will encourage DNS administrators to include those zones in configurations to resolve them locally, in compliance with RFC6598, and help prevent leakage of such queries to the global DNS.

Working Group Summary

The WG found that this is a straightforward update to a well-known and widely used registry, to support deployment of IPv6 via the mechanism described in RFC 6598.

Document Quality

The document is brief and clear as to its intended purpose, which is quite simple. The effect of local resolution of these names is in compliance with RFC 6598. Guidance to operators making it easier for them to do so supports orderly deployment of RFC 6598 (Carrier Grade NAT).

Personnel

  Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area
  Director?

Shepherd: Suzanne Woolf
AD: Joel Jaeggli


(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by
the Document Shepherd.  If this version of the document is not ready
for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to
the IESG.

To the contrary, this has been a loose end for some time and should admittedly have been forwarded long ago.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

None. As above, this is a straightforward addition to a long-established registry, in support of specific protocol deployment in another RFC (6598)

(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from
broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS,
DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that
took place.

No.

(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd
has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the
IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable
with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really
is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and
has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those
concerns here.

The WG found in the WGLC discussion that there's an ambiguity about whether these zones should be added to the "Locally Served DNS Zones" registry or the "Special Use Names" registry, as those overlap. It's been determined that given the controversy around use of the "Special Use Names" registry, and its uncertain future, we should simply add these names to the "Locally Served DNS Zones" registry and leave any reconciliation for a future action. We believe the resolution suggested is the best way forward at this time, and preferable to further delaying this document.

(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78
and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why.

N/A

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
disclosures.

No.

(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it
represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others
being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? 

It's a simple change to an informational registry, with very limited protocol implications, so it has not raised controversy.

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate
email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a
separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.)

No.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
thorough.

IDnits flagged a check for the document boilerplate and several places where the use of an IPv4 prefix doesn't comply with the guidelines for use of example prefixes. Since the document is about the prefix flagged (100.64/10), this is invalid (and fairly humorous).

Nits have been mailed to the author.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

N/A

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?

Yes

(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for
advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative
references exist, what is the plan for their completion?

No

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)?
If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in
the Last Call procedure.

No

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any
existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed
in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not
listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the
part of the document where the relationship of this document to the
other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document,
explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.

None

(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations
section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the
document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes
are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries.
Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly
identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a
detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that
allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a
reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226).

This document serves to update a single specific IANA registry.

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future
allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find
useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

N/A

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document
Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal
language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.

N/A

(Via drafts-lastcall-comment@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc6598-rfc6303-05.txt. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there is a single action which IANA must complete.

IANA will add the zones listed in Section 2.1 of [ RFC-to-be ] to the "IPv4 Locally-Served DNS Zone Registry".

IANA understands that this is the registry located at:

http://www.iana.org/assignments/locally-served-dns-zones/

IANA understands that the full list of zone to be added to the registry is:

64.100.IN-ADDR.ARPA
65.100.IN-ADDR.ARPA
66.100.IN-ADDR.ARPA
67.100.IN-ADDR.ARPA
68.100.IN-ADDR.ARPA
69.100.IN-ADDR.ARPA
70.100.IN-ADDR.ARPA
71.100.IN-ADDR.ARPA
72.100.IN-ADDR.ARPA
73.100.IN-ADDR.ARPA
74.100.IN-ADDR.ARPA
75.100.IN-ADDR.ARPA
76.100.IN-ADDR.ARPA
77.100.IN-ADDR.ARPA
78.100.IN-ADDR.ARPA
79.100.IN-ADDR.ARPA
80.100.IN-ADDR.ARPA
81.100.IN-ADDR.ARPA
82.100.IN-ADDR.ARPA
83.100.IN-ADDR.ARPA
84.100.IN-ADDR.ARPA
85.100.IN-ADDR.ARPA
86.100.IN-ADDR.ARPA
87.100.IN-ADDR.ARPA
88.100.IN-ADDR.ARPA
89.100.IN-ADDR.ARPA
90.100.IN-ADDR.ARPA
91.100.IN-ADDR.ARPA
92.100.IN-ADDR.ARPA
93.100.IN-ADDR.ARPA
94.100.IN-ADDR.ARPA
95.100.IN-ADDR.ARPA
96.100.IN-ADDR.ARPA
97.100.IN-ADDR.ARPA
98.100.IN-ADDR.ARPA
99.100.IN-ADDR.ARPA
100.100.IN-ADDR.ARPA
101.100.IN-ADDR.ARPA
102.100.IN-ADDR.ARPA
103.100.IN-ADDR.ARPA
104.100.IN-ADDR.ARPA
105.100.IN-ADDR.ARPA
106.100.IN-ADDR.ARPA
107.100.IN-ADDR.ARPA
108.100.IN-ADDR.ARPA
109.100.IN-ADDR.ARPA
110.100.IN-ADDR.ARPA
111.100.IN-ADDR.ARPA
112.100.IN-ADDR.ARPA
113.100.IN-ADDR.ARPA
114.100.IN-ADDR.ARPA
115.100.IN-ADDR.ARPA
116.100.IN-ADDR.ARPA
117.100.IN-ADDR.ARPA
118.100.IN-ADDR.ARPA
119.100.IN-ADDR.ARPA
120.100.IN-ADDR.ARPA
121.100.IN-ADDR.ARPA
122.100.IN-ADDR.ARPA
123.100.IN-ADDR.ARPA
124.100.IN-ADDR.ARPA
125.100.IN-ADDR.ARPA
126.100.IN-ADDR.ARPA
127.100.IN-ADDR.ARPA

For each of these entries the reference will be set to [ RFC-to-be ]. IANA also notes that an insecure delegation for these zones is required for compliance with [RFC6598] to break the DNSSEC chain of trust.

IANA understands that this is the only action required to be completed upon approval
of this document.

Note:  The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is only to confirm what actions will be performed.

The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: "IETF-Announce"
CC: draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc6598-rfc6303@ietf.org, joelja@gmail.com, suzworldwide@gmail.com, dnsop-chairs@ietf.org, dnsop@ietf.org
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Add 100.64.0.0/10 prefixes to IPv4 Locally-Served DNS Zones Registry.) to Best Current Practice


The IESG has received a request from the Domain Name System Operations WG
(dnsop) to consider the following document:
- 'Add 100.64.0.0/10 prefixes to IPv4 Locally-Served DNS Zones Registry.'
  as Best Current Practice

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 2015-11-23. 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


  RFC6598 specified that: "Reverse DNS queries for Shared Address Space
  addresses [100.64.0.0/10] MUST NOT be forwarded to the global DNS
  infrastructure."

  This document formally directs IANA to add the associated zones to
  the "IPv4 Locally-Served DNS Zones Registry" to prevent such queries
  accidently leaking to the global DNS infrastructure.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc6598-rfc6303/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc6598-rfc6303/ballot/


No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Shepherd Write-Up.

Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 24 February 2012.

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)?  Why
is this the proper type of RFC?  Is this type of RFC indicated in the
title page header?

Informational, as indicated in the datatracker. (This is ambiguous with the document itself, and will be fixed.)

(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement
Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent
examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved
documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections:

Technical Summary

This document adds the reverse address zones for 100.64.0.0/10 to the "Locally Served DNS Zones Registry." This will encourage DNS administrators to include those zones in configurations to resolve them locally, in compliance with RFC6598, and help prevent leakage of such queries to the global DNS.

Working Group Summary

The WG found that this is a straightforward update to a well-known and widely used registry, to support deployment of IPv6 via the mechanism described in RFC 6598.

Document Quality

The document is brief and clear as to its intended purpose, which is quite simple. The effect of local resolution of these names is in compliance with RFC 6598. Guidance to operators making it easier for them to do so supports orderly deployment of RFC 6598 (Carrier Grade NAT).

Personnel

  Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area
  Director?

Shepherd: Suzanne Woolf
AD: Joel Jaeggli


(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by
the Document Shepherd.  If this version of the document is not ready
for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to
the IESG.

To the contrary, this has been a loose end for some time and should admittedly have been forwarded long ago.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

None. As above, this is a straightforward addition to a long-established registry, in support of specific protocol deployment in another RFC (6598)

(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from
broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS,
DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that
took place.

No.

(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd
has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the
IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable
with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really
is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and
has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those
concerns here.

The WG found in the WGLC discussion that there's an ambiguity about whether these zones should be added to the "Locally Served DNS Zones" registry or the "Special Use Names" registry, as those overlap. It's been determined that given the controversy around use of the "Special Use Names" registry, and its uncertain future, we should simply add these names to the "Locally Served DNS Zones" registry and leave any reconciliation for a future action. We believe the resolution suggested is the best way forward at this time, and preferable to further delaying this document.

(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78
and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why.

N/A

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
disclosures.

No.

(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it
represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others
being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? 

It's a simple change to an informational registry, with very limited protocol implications, so it has not raised controversy.

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate
email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a
separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.)

No.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
thorough.

IDnits flagged a check for the document boilerplate and several places where the use of an IPv4 prefix doesn't comply with the guidelines for use of example prefixes. Since the document is about the prefix flagged (100.64/10), this is invalid (and fairly humorous).

Nits have been mailed to the author.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

N/A

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?

Yes

(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for
advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative
references exist, what is the plan for their completion?

No

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)?
If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in
the Last Call procedure.

No

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any
existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed
in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not
listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the
part of the document where the relationship of this document to the
other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document,
explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.

None

(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations
section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the
document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes
are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries.
Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly
identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a
detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that
allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a
reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226).

This document serves to update a single specific IANA registry.

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future
allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find
useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

N/A

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document
Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal
language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.

N/A

This document has actually passed WGLC, except for a conflict identified in WGLC between 2 IANA registries: the one mentioned in this draft, the "IPv4 Locally-Served DNS Zone Registry", reserves some of the same address blocks as the "Special-Use Domain Name" registry (RFC 6761).

We're recommending that this draft be published pending some later action to resolve that overlap. It doesn't affect the address block/in-addr.arpa zone referred to here and publishing it makes the situation no worse. Fixing the problem, which predates this document, should be undertaken separately.