Hi Marco Thank you for your comments.
Section 3.2 mentions "Broken IPv6 Connectivity at the Resolver". Why > does this paragraph has a focus on IPv6 while dismissing possible IPv4 > issues? As this draft is for "DNS IPv6 Transport Operational Guidelines" I think we should focus on IPv6. With regard to section 4.1 "IPv6 adoption" - I would change the SHOULD > into a MUST in: "authoritative DNS servers SHOULD use native IPv6 > addresses instead of IPv6 addresses synthesized" I disagree with changing this SHOULD to a MUST. If an operator has reasons preventing them from using native IPv6 on their authoritative DNS server, but can utilise NAT64, then they should not be prevented from doing so. I would like to hear more from the list on this draft. The current editors copy is at https://ietf-wg-dnsop.github.io/draft-ietf-dnsop-3901bis/draft-ietf-dnsop-3901bis.html Momoka On Fri, Nov 21, 2025 at 1:55 AM Marco Davids (IETF) <[email protected]> wrote: > I generally support this document, with two concerns: > > Section 3.2 mentions "Broken IPv6 Connectivity at the Resolver". Why > does this paragraph has a focus on IPv6 while dismissing possible IPv4 > issues? > > With regard to section 4.1 "IPv6 adoption" - I would change the SHOULD > into a MUST in: "authoritative DNS servers SHOULD use native IPv6 > addresses instead of IPv6 addresses synthesized" > > -- > Marco > > > On Thu, 20 Nov 2025 06:11:09 -0800 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. > > > Please review and indicate your support or objection to proceed with the > > publication of this document >
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
