I support adoption, this is important work and supports the trend to increase IPv6 use.
On Mon, Jan 27, 2025 at 12:59 PM <[email protected]> wrote: > 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. > Agree that this should be removed. It freezes the draft in a time in which 1. is constantly evolving, and 2. is counter to the current trend. > > > > "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." > +100 > > > 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] >
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
