Dear WG,
This is a reminder that the WGLC for this document will run for another week.
So far, three people have expressed support, but two of them also had feedback
on normative language, which authors have responded to but related questions
have not yet been resolved.
We invite the WG to submit more feedback on this document, and authors to
resolve the raised questions during WGLC if possible.
As work has happened on GitHub without providing OLD/NEW diffs on the list,
please also provide a link to the running diff of -07 against the editor's copy
or some other sort of diff. Chairs need to be very clear on what version of the
text consensus is being assessed for.
(Editor's copy link from
https://github.com/ietf-wg-dnsop/draft-ietf-dnsop-3901bis is not working.)
Thanks,
Peter
On 11/20/25 15:11, Peter Thomassen via Datatracker 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]
