I apologize for mis-reading your messages, multiple times. You are correct that the wording in the current document is incorrect. Thank you for your persistance.
On Sep 4, 2023, at 4:32 AM, Florian Obser via Datatracker <nore...@ietf.org> wrote: > > Reviewer: Florian Obser > Review result: Ready with Issues > > -12 does not address the issues that were introduced in version -11. > The status of my review does not change. > > This is the text from the -11 review: > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > For example, consider an authoritative server named ns0.example.com > that is served by two installations (with two A records), one at > 192.0.2.7 that follows this guidance, and one at 2001:db8::8 that is > a legacy (cleartext port 53-only) deployment. > > It doesn't have two A records. It has an A and AAAA record. I know > that Éric asked for a non-legacy IP example, but I don't think this makes > things better. I find it very confusing, usually the server would be > dual stacked so why would it do different things depending on the > address family? Maybe just go v6 only, thusly? > > For example, consider an authoritative server named ns0.example.com > that is served by two installations (with two AAAA records), one at > 2001:db8::7 that follows this guidance, and one at 2001:db8::8 that is > a legacy (cleartext port 53-only) deployment. A recursive client who > associates state with the NS name and reaches 2001:db8::7 first will > > Same in 4.5: Yep, agree, and that should keep our AD happy as well. We will make this change in -13. --Paul Hoffman _______________________________________________ dns-privacy mailing list dns-privacy@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy
