Thanks for the context Tobias, Be well, G/
-----Original Message----- From: Tobias Fiebig <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2026 5:45 PM To: Gunter van de Velde (Nokia) <[email protected]>; The IESG <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Re: Gunter Van de Velde's No Objection on draft-ietf-dnsop-3901bis-10: (with COMMENT) [You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] CAUTION: This is an external email. Please be very careful when clicking links or opening attachments. See the URL nok.it/ext for additional information. Dear Gunter, thank you for your comment. Concerning the extend in comparison to 3901 going beyond a -bis, I tend to agree. The bis is due to the document's history. Initially, the document set out to make minor changes to 3901, just lifting IPv4 and IPv6 to the same level. However, over the course of the WG discussions, several additional aspects where brought up, and the document evolved in response to feedback. With best regards, Tobias > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > - > COMMENT: > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > - > > # Gunter Van de Velde, RTG AD, comments for draft-ietf-dnsop-3901bis- > 10 > > # Thank for writing this document and the work that went into > documenting "DNS > IPv6 Transport Operational Guidelines" > > # When looking at the diff [1] between the original rfc3901 and this > new rfc3901bis it appears that 3901bis is a rather different document. > Often the > -bis is the original rfc with added content and findings. It often is > not a complete rewrite. # I am not a DNS expert, nevertheless to a > large degree i found this document written in a way i could mostly > understand # Seeing [2] make me wonder if rough consensus was reached > on all contested items, or if consensus was merely assumed due to > silent voices. I am not versed enough in DNS to identify if my > concern/observation is DISCUSS worthy on technicalities (hence my > No_Objection), but it does leave me unconvinced on the rough consensus > question. > > Gunter Van de Velde > RTG Area Director > > [1] > https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url1=rfc3901&url2=draft-ietf-dnso > p-3901bis-10&difftype=--html > [2] > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/fADwWfSyQrJSWIaSJob4A1w-AK > s/ > > -- My working day may not be your working day. Please do not feel obliged to reply to my email outside of your normal working hours. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Tobias Fiebig, Forschungsgruppe Internet Architecture (INET) Max-Planck-Institut für Informatik, Campus E14, 66123 Saarbrücken E1 4 - Raum 517 mobil: +31 616 80 98 99 _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
