Re: [DNSOP] draft-ietf-dnsop-respsize-07
On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 05:38:19AM +, Paul Vixie wrote: A zone's name servers should be reachable by all IP transport protocols (e.g., IPv4 and IPv6) in common use. what i meant was that a zone should have servers reachable by every IP transport protocol in common use, in order that the zone be reachable by all DNS initiators no matter what IP transport protocol they're using. I haven't seen alternative text proposed; here's some: The set of name servers for a zone should be reachable via all versions of IP (e.g. IPv4 and IPv6) in common use. I think that expresses what you wanted, and also gets rid of the transport protocols nit that Rob noted. (To emphasise, though, this whole discussion is a nit as far as I'm concerned; I'm happy to see it go ahead without the change. It seems like an editorial matter to me.) A -- Andrew Sullivan 204-4141 Yonge Street Afilias CanadaToronto, Ontario Canada [EMAIL PROTECTED] M2P 2A8 jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] +1 416 646 3304 x4110 ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
Re: [DNSOP] draft-ietf-dnsop-respsize-07
I reviewed the draft (sorry I was not in Prague). My comment which does not duplicate the previous comments of Joe Abley, Andrew Sullivan, and Rob Austein: 4.5. Multi-homing of name servers across protocol families is less likely to lead to or encounter truncation, partly because multiprotocol clients are more likely to speak EDNS which can use a larger response size limit, and partly because the resource records (A and ) are in different RRsets and are therefore divisible from each other. I think a small piece of sentence explaining why multiprotocol clients are more likely to speak EDNS will make the whole paragraph more clear to understand, such as by changing the part as ... partly because multiprotocol clients, which is required to handle larger RRsets such as RRs, are more likely to ... In general, I support this document to be proceeded in next phase soon as possible. // Kenji Rikitake ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
Re: [DNSOP] draft-ietf-dnsop-respsize-07
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andrew Sullivan) writes: I note that in section 2.2.3, we have this: A zone's name servers should be reachable by all IP transport protocols (e.g., IPv4 and IPv6) in common use. I have read differing opinions on whether it is better to have protocol-dedicated servers (on the grounds that it makes troubleshooting in a world of poorly implemented dual stacks easier) or to have all-protocol name servers. I think therefore that the reasoning for the above claim should be spelled out in more detail. what i meant was that a zone should have servers reachable by every IP transport protocol in common use, in order that the zone be reachable by all DNS initiators no matter what IP transport protocol they're using. i can see that the writing as quoted above is sloppy, and doesn't say what i thought it said, and i can clean it up if the WG thinks it's important. Other than that, I think this is a good and useful draft, and should be advanced. me too! -- Paul Vixie ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
[DNSOP] draft-ietf-dnsop-respsize-07
Dear colleagues, It has taken me longer than I expected, but I have reviewed draft-ietf-dnsop-respsize-07. I note that in section 2.2.3, we have this: A zone's name servers should be reachable by all IP transport protocols (e.g., IPv4 and IPv6) in common use. I have read differing opinions on whether it is better to have protocol-dedicated servers (on the grounds that it makes troubleshooting in a world of poorly implemented dual stacks easier) or to have all-protocol name servers. I think therefore that the reasoning for the above claim should be spelled out in more detail. Other than that, I think this is a good and useful draft, and should be advanced. A -- Andrew Sullivan 204-4141 Yonge Street Afilias CanadaToronto, Ontario Canada [EMAIL PROTECTED] M2P 2A8 jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] +1 416 646 3304 x4110 ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
