On Thu, Nov 27, 2025 at 1:01 AM Momoka Yamamoto <[email protected]> wrote:
> > 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. > If there is new knowledge to document about IPv4 issues, I would support including them. I do think our focus is best spent on IPv6 given that's the protocol that has had a huge growth in experience and deployment since RFC 3901 and therefore needs more attention. What did you have in mind to include, Marco? > > > 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. > +1, I would prefer this remained a SHOULD without strong evidence that use of IPv6 synthesized addresses is always harmful in some way. > > > > 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] >
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
