DNS IPv6 Transport Operational Guidelines
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 02 and is now closed.
(Bill Fenner) Yes
(David Kessens) Yes
(Jon Peterson) Yes
(Harald Alvestrand) No Objection
Reviewed by John Loughney, Gen-ART Nits: 1) RFC 2026 boilerplate - needs updating 2) No headers / footers / page numbers / page breaks, etc.
(Steven Bellovin) No Objection
(Margaret Cullen) No Objection
(Ted Hardie) No Objection
(Scott Hollenbeck) No Objection
(Russ Housley) No Objection
In the Abstract, I propose changing "a world" to "the Internet." In section 2, please change "v4" to "IPv4."
(Allison Mankin) No Objection
(Thomas Narten) No Objection
> transport. The concern is that a resolver using only a particular > version of IP, querying information about another node using the same > version of IP can not do it because, somewhere in the chain of > servers accessed during the resolution process, one or more of them > will only be accessible with the other version of IP. hard to read. suggested reword: The concern is that a resolver using only a particular version of IP will be unable to resolve a name because somewhere in the chain of servers accessed during the resolution process, one or more of them will only be accessible only with the other version of IP. > through a "translator", i.e. they have to use a recursive name server > on a so-called "dual stack" host as a "forwarder" since they cannot > access the DNS data directly. Is "forwarder" the best name for this? Sounds to me like what a "proxy" does. Any reason not to call it that? > With all DNS data only available over IPv6 transport everything would > be equally simple, with the exception of IPv4 recursive name servers > having to switch to a forwarding configuration. What does this mean? What is there to "switch to"? Recursive servers just do this. In the normative references section, I have a hard time believing that most (if indeed any) of the references are actually normative. Not that it matters a whole lot though.