This rationale seems defensible for 2460 vs 1883. I wasn't aware of the decision tree, and it's not a material point (relative to what the document is trying to convey). No worries.
On Wed, Jan 21, 2026 at 12:10 AM Tobias Fiebig <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hello Erik, > > thanks for your detailed review and feedback. Concerning the last point > (as Med already responded to the other two): We had picked 2490 over > 1883, because it is a draft-standard, and not a proposed standard; > Also, looking at general IPv6 reception, 1998 is usually more seen as > 'the year' IPv6 came out. > > However, that does not really make for strong feelings either way, and > you point (picking the earliest) makes at least as much sense to me as > the reasoning we used. > > So we would be happy to change that in the next revision. > > With best regards, > Tobias > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > - > > COMMENT: > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > - > > > > # Internet AD comments for draft-ietf-dnsop-3901bis-10 > > CC @ekline > > > > * comment syntax: > > - https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md > > > > * "Handling Ballot Positions": > > - > > https://ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ > > > > ## Comments > > > > ### S4.1 > > > > * "IPv4-converted IPv6 addresses" > > > > As Geoff Huston pointed out, this is not a formal term. I > > recommend > > adopting his suggested alternative: > > > > "Authoritative DNS servers SHOULD NOT use IPv4-Compatible IPv6 > > Addresses > > and IPv4-Mapped IPv6 Address [RFC4291]". > > > > ### S4.2 > > > > * Geoff highlights some concerns with recurser forwarding and the > > lack of > > a protocol-based mechanism for loop avoidance or loop termination. > > > > One possibility here might be to say that recursers SHOULD NOT > > forward > > to other recursers in the manner described unless the operator can > > be > > sure that no loops can ever formed (the means by which this is to > > be > > done would, of course, be outside the scope of this document). > > Operators > > choosing to employ this kind of recurser forwarding may open their > > infrastructure to denial of resource attacks. > > > > ## Nits > > > > ### S1 > > > > * If you're going to reach for an early IPv6 RFC then 2460 itself was > > replacing 1883 (1998 vs 1995). > > > > > > -- > My working day may not be your working day. Please do not feel obliged > to reply to my email outside of your normal working hours. > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > Tobias Fiebig, Forschungsgruppe Internet Architecture (INET) > Max-Planck-Institut für Informatik, Campus E14, 66123 Saarbrücken > E1 4 - Raum 517 mobil: +31 616 80 98 99 >
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
