Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc7816bis-10: Discuss
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc7816bis/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- DISCUSS: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thank you for the work put into this document. A simple but efficient technique. Please find below one blocking DISCUSS point (probably easy to address). Please also address Jean-Michel Combes' INTDR review at https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-dnsop-rfc7816bis-10-intdir-telechat-combes-2021-08-20/ Special thanks to Tim Wicinski for his shepherd's write-up notably about the WG consensus. I hope that this helps to improve the document, Regards, -éric == DISCUSS == -- Section 2.1 -- I support Erik Kline's COMMENT on this and am raising it to a blocking DISCUSS. A/ in all the discussion in the last §, a AAAA would have the same benefit when compared to a NS QTYPE. Or what did I miss ? B/ the last two sentences "Another potential benefit...happy eyeballs query for the A QTYPE." are puzzling as using A QTYPE will actually only cache the A answer for the minimized request and more and more Internet users are using IPv6 nowadays (and possibly even more recursive DNS servers). Hence, I would welcome some discussion in the last § about the benefit of using A QTYPE rather than AAAA QTYPE and, as suggested by Erik Kline, please remove the last 2 sentences. _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
