I support publication of this document. The following comments have also been added as a GitHub issue and PR.
Was the lowercase use of "must" in the "Missing Glue" definition and the lowercase use of "should" at the bottom of page 8 intentional? I have no strong opinions, but these uses seem accidental. If they are intended to be lowercase, different word choices might make sense. There are a few long sentences that would benefit from being broken up, which I have suggested in PR #27. One type, also covered by PR #27, in Section 3.2 before the list: s/the following way/the following ways/ Thanks, Tommy On Thu, Nov 20, 2025 at 6:15 AM Peter Thomassen via Datatracker < [email protected]> wrote: > > Subject: WG Last Call: draft-ietf-dnsop-3901bis-07 (Ends 2025-12-04) > > This message starts a 2-week WG Last Call for this document. > > Abstract: > This memo provides guidelines and documents Best Current Practice for > operating authoritative DNS servers as well as recursive and stub DNS > resolvers, given that queries and responses are carried in a mixed > environment of IPv4 and IPv6 networks. This document recommends that > authoritative DNS servers as well as recursive DNS resolvers support > both IPv4 and IPv6. It furthermore provides guidance for how > recursive DNS resolvers should select upstream DNS servers, if > synthesized and non-synthesized IPv6 addresses are available. > > This document obsoletes RFC 3901. (if approved) > > File can be retrieved from: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-3901bis/ > > Please review and indicate your support or objection to proceed with the > publication of this document by replying to this email keeping > [email protected] > in copy. Objections should be motivated and suggestions to resolve them are > highly appreciated. > > Authors, and WG participants in general, are reminded again of the > Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in BCP > 79 > [1]. Appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the > provisions of BCP 78 [1] and BCP 79 [2] must be filed, if you are aware of > any. Sanctions available for application to violators of IETF IPR Policy > can > be found at [3]. > > Thank you. > > [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/bcp78/ > [2] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/bcp79/ > [3] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc6701/ > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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]
