> On 2012-04-04, at 08:20, William F. Maton Sotomayor wrote:
>> It seems that after delivering my presentation on subsequent AS112
>> delegations in Quebec City, I hadn't recalled what the group thought about
>> adopting this work as a dnsop item. So, I'm soliciting feedback on this
>> request. I have posted version 03 for your consideration.
> I think that we need a better mechanism to avoid lame delegations to the AS112 servers, given their loosely-coordinated nature. The add/drop problem for those servers (the difficulty in requesting zone changes across from a potentially wide and unknown population of server administrators, and being effectively unable to measure whether those changes are complete) is a fundamental weakness in the 112 project as it is operated today.
> I like the idea that came up in Québec (which I shall attribute to Warren Kumari since I've seen other people do that, although I was not in the room at the time) that the add/drop problem is a lot simpler if every AS112 node hosts the zone
+1. It's needs more testing admittedly, and I think having an extra
prefix as a test to demonstrate how it would work would be beneficial
before operational roll-out, but I'm getting way ahead of this already.
As George subsequently stated, there needs to be a deletion process just
as there's a removal process.
> - update RFC 6304 and 6305 as necessary
> - write something that cleans up and unifies the various registries that currently contain RFC 6303-like names, with appropriate IANA actions (ipv4-cull contains some references in section 2, see also draft-cheshire-dnsext-special-names)
> - write something that provides guidance for future document authors on when they should specify an IANA action to add a new zone to the grand unified as112 registry and cause a delegation to "something" and "sensible" to happen.
> This document (as112-cull) attempts to do some of this work, but I don't see a reason to bite off small mouthfuls if we can expend a small amount of extra effort and eat the whole sandwich at once.
Yeah, cull is actually part I of II, the second draft was destined to
include a process for adding/removing plus maintaining AS112 servers in
general, an exposition on lameness in AS112, etc. But that can be rolled
into a possible bis.