I strongly support adoption. Additional commentary in-line. Thanks, Tommy
> -----Original Message----- > From: Tobias Fiebig <[email protected]> > Sent: Monday, January 27, 2025 8:37 AM > To: Bob Harold <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; draft-momoka-dnsop- > [email protected] > Subject: [EXTERNAL] [DNSOP] Re: The DNSOP WG has placed draft-momoka- > dnsop-3901bis in state "Call For Adoption By WG Issued" > > [You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this > is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] > > Hello Bob, > > > I support adoption, and have a few comments. > > Thanks! > > > > 3.1. Misconfigurations Causing IP Version Related Name Space > > Fragmentation End of first paragraph: > > "As such, these issues are more common for IPv6 > > resolution related name space fragmentation." > > This sentence will not age well, I suggest dropping it. > > I tend to agree; There were some voices in various directions on this point, > though, so I would appreciate more opinions. No strong feelings about keeping it > in, though. > I would say this should be removed. This statement is based on the unstated assumption that more hosts run IPv4-only than run IPv6-only, which the IETF is actively working to change. > > "No A/AAAA records for NS names: > > If none of the NS records for a zone in their parent zone have > > associated A or AAAA records, while holding the inverse record, > > resolution via the concerned IP version is not possible." > > Not sure what is meant by "inverse" record - is that a PTR? > > Suggestion: > > "No A/AAAA records for NS names: > > If all of the NS records for a zone in their parent zone have > > either > > only A records or only AAAA records, then > > resolution via the other IP version is not possible." > > I like the reformulation; Will use it. Inverse indeed meant "A record if only AAAA > records are set, or AAAA record if only A records are set" > > > "Furthermore, any of the misconfigurations above may also materialize > > not via a missing Resource Record (RR) but via an RR providing the > > IP > > address of a nameserver that is not configured to answer queries > > via > > that IP version [V6DNSRDY-23]." > > Suggest " ... not only via a missing Resource Record (RR) but also via > > ..." > > ack > > > 4.2. Guidelines for DNS Resolvers > > > > "Every recurisve DNS resolver SHOULD be dual stack." > > misspelling of 'recursive' > > ack > > Thanks! > > With best regards, > Tobias > > -- > Dr.-Ing. Tobias Fiebig > T +31 616 80 98 99 > M [email protected] > > _______________________________________________ > DNSOP mailing list -- [email protected] > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
