Gorry Fairhurst has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-dnsop-3901bis-15: No Objection
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-3901bis/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thank for writing this document and the work that went into documenting DNS IPv6 Transport and thank you to Martin Duke for a TSV-ART review. I appreciate the work to address the transport concerns and have updated the position based on rev -14. # COMMENTS (non-blocking) Please find below some non-blocking COMMENT points/nits (replies would be appreciated even if only for my own education). ## Section 3.2: I could not understand the "otherwise" in this: "Otherwise, if the protocol is not resilient to IP layer fragmentation related issues by default, the above guidance for TCP and UDP based connections SHOULD be applied analogously." - There is use of DNS over other transports and I do understand what is being called for by this requirement, please explain (and consider rephrasing?). ## Section 4.1. Guidelines for Authoritative DNS Server Configuration: "Every DNS zone SHOULD be served by at least two IPv4-reachable authoritative DNS servers to maintain name space continuity." - Because this is a "SHOULD", please explain the implications when the advice is not followed. I then read, the following: " To reduce the chance of DNS name space fragmentation, it is RECOMMENDED that at least two IPv4-reachable and two IPv6-reachable name servers are configured for a zone." - I think I may have been confused by the various recommendations and tried to see how to reconciled these two statements. I am a little concerned that the advice in this section might be complicated, and I wonder whether these (initial) statements are not intended to be normative, because the following bullets appear to define more specific requirements. More clarity would be appreciated. ## Section 4.1. fall back " and providing TCP fall back options [RFC7766]." - Please be more specific to which section of RFC7766 is being cited, I could only find one that is normative (and one informative). ## Section 4.3: What is required? “ When providing multiple DNS servers to stub resolvers, network operators SHOULD consider that various implementations can only configure a small set of possible DNS resolvers, e.g., only up to three for libc [MAN], and additional resolvers provided may be ignored by clients." - What is the protocol requirement here? I can see consideration might be important, but I expect it isn't sufficient to think about the problem and sort sort of action might be required/desired? - Gorry _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
