Document: draft-ietf-dnsop-3901bis Title: DNS IPv6 Transport Operational Guidelines Reviewer: Aihua Guo Review result: Has Nits
Impression: Has Nits I have been selected as the OPSDIR reviewer for this I-D. While I am not a DNS expert, I have reviewed the document carefully. My impression is that the draft is technically sound and well written, and I believe it is ready for publication. Nevertheless, I have identified a few minor nits and small issues that I recommend addressing prior to the draft proceeding to final publication. Nits: s/recrusive/recursive/ s/...from resolving for clients.../...from being resolved for clients.../ s/If the name from an NS RR for a zone is sibling domain/If the name from an NS RR for a zone is (in?) sibling domain/ Minor issues Section 4.1, "Guidelines for Authoritative DNS Server Configuration", first states that “It is usually recommended that DNS zones contain at least two name servers,” and that “it is RECOMMENDED that at least two name servers for a zone are dual-stack name servers.” However, the following discussion on IPv4 and IPv6 adoption states that “Every DNS zone SHOULD be served by at least one IPv4-reachable(or IPv6-reacheable) authoritative DNS server to maintain name space continuity.” These above statements appear somewhat contradictory. I'd tend to think that the first recommendation describes the ideal configuration, while the latter is a minimum requirement? It may be helpful to clarify this explicitly in the text to avoid confusion. _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
