A Suggested Scheme for DNS Resolution of Networks and Gateways
draft-warnicke-network-dns-resolution-05

[Ballot comment]
Reviewed by Suzanne Woolf, Gen-ART

I recommend the comments be passed to the RFC Editor.

The draft is listed in the agenda as "informational". As written, it
may be intended as "BCP". But there are no usage notes revealing the
intention.

The draft discusses a mechanism for using specially-formed chains of
PTR records to publish the names and IP addresses of the first-hop
router for a given IP address, and (implicitly) the netmask. The
mechanism is not too dissimilar to that used for subdelegating
responsibility for PTR records in prefix delegations longer than /24
(RFC 2317).

At first reading, this strikes me as the sort of use of the DNS often
proposed by people who think the DNS is a more sophisticated and
robust database mechanism than it is. Such schemes tend to be harmless
if people decide they're merely useless, but often they don't scale
very well if people do like them. There are also may be implementation
pitfalls that can generate lots of new queries on the infrastructure.

I suggest this draft be reviewed by DNSOP, if only to add usage and
implementation notes suggesting the limitations or hazards of the
proposed approach. There are no protocol issues I can see so it's out
of scope for DNSEXT.

[Note]: '2005-02-23: I''ve reviewed this and do not believe it conflicts with
any IETF work. I think is fine to be published as an Independent
Submission.' added by David Kessens

RFC Editor has received new revision.
They will re-review that first and then ask IESG again for comment with new 4 week timeout.


-----Original Message-----
From: RFC Editor [mailto:rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org]
Sent: vrijdag 19 maart 2004 1:35
To: Bert Wijnen
Cc: RFC Editor
Subject: [eaw@cisco.com: Re:
draft-warnicke-network-dns-resolution-03.txt]


Bert,

FYI: We are removing
from our queue, and replacing ith with version -03.  However, please
note that you can remove this document from your queue entirely until
the RFC Editor has completed our review of version -03.  If version
-03 is found to acceptable by the RFC Editor, it will be sent to the
IESG for a 4 week review, starting a new timeout period.

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Thanks,

Sandy

Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 12:54:33 -0400
From: Ed Warnicke
To: Randy Bush
Subject: Re: draft-warnicke-network-dns-resolution-02.txt

Randy,
    I would like to request that the IESG send
draft-warnicke-network-dns-resolution-02.txt back to me
to add IPv6 support to the draft.

Ed
Randy Bush wrote:

>i would propose the change back to the dnsop wg.
>
>randy
>
> 
>
>> My apologies, but there was an error in my last edit of
>>draft-warnicke-network-dns-resolution-02.txt which I have noticed because
>>of the confusion it has caused  Peter Koch.  The last sentence in
>>paragraph 1 of the introduction sections reads:
>>
>>"It would be useful to have a standard mechanism for such
>>a host to find the first-hop router(s)."
>>
>>The implication is that a host would be using the method of the draft
>>to look up information about itself.  This is incorrect.  Rather that
>>sentence should be replaced by:
>>
>>"It may be necessary for a third party server in the network to
>>request some service related to the host from the first-hop router.
>>It would be useful to have a standard mechanism for such a server to find
>>the first hop router(s)"
>>
>>What is the best way to proceed at this point in the process to correct
>>the error?
>>
>>Should I submit a new draft with this minor change and requeue it with
>>the RFC Editor?
>>
>>Since it doesn't effect the substance of the method described should I
>>correct it in the 48 hour windows provided to authors after the IESG is
>>through with the draft?
>>
>>Should I request the IESG kick the draft back to me for this minor edit?
>>
>>I want to resolve this problem in the most appropriate manner, but
>>I'm not clear on what that is.  Would you be kind enough to offer
>>me some council in that regard?
>>
>>Again, my apology for having let such an error slip through.
>>
>>Ed
>>
>>On Sat, 5 Jul 2003, Randy Bush wrote:
>>
>>   
>>
>>>>>I'd have to check my notes to be certain, but I think that the WG
>>>>>discussed this in San Francisco and decided not to make it a WG doc.
>>>>>         
>>>>>
>>>>not having been in San Francisco I do not know what the decision(oops?)
>>>>was based upon, but here are some comments and more detailed remarks
>>>>below:
>>>>...
>>>>So, finally, based on the information currently available I'd agree that
>>>>the draft not be adopted by the WG. An update of RFC 1101 would be
>>>>interesting, though.
>>>>       
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>what i would most appreciate is one of
>>>  o a statement by the wg that this is being taken on as a work item
>>>  o a statement by the wg that this is NOT being taken on as a work
>>>    item, but the wg has no problem with its publication as info
>>>  o a statement by the wg that this should not be published for some
>>>    stated set of reasons, or that it could be published but with a
>>>    warning (text included).
>>>
>>>randy, just tryin' to process a document
>>>
>>>#----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>># To unsubscribe, send a message to .
>>>
>>>     
>>>
>
> 
>

From: Randy Bush
Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2003 14:54:50 -0700
To: dns op wg
Subject: draft-warnicke-network-dns-resolution-02.txt

is dnsop tracking this?  should the wg take responsibility for it,
either as a wg document, if you like it and think it can be worked
to become product.  or as a "wg has reviewed this document and is
in doubt that it is a useful idea."  or whatever.

randy