At 07 Jun 2007 05:38:19 +0000, Paul Vixie wrote: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andrew Sullivan) writes: > > > I note that in section 2.2.3, we have this: > > > > A zone's name servers should be reachable by all IP transport > > protocols (e.g., IPv4 and IPv6) in common use. > > > > I have read differing opinions on whether it is better to have > > protocol-dedicated servers (on the grounds that it makes > > troubleshooting in a world of poorly implemented dual stacks easier) > > or to have all-protocol name servers. I think therefore that the > > reasoning for the above claim should be spelled out in more detail. > > what i meant was that a zone should have servers reachable by every > IP transport protocol in common use, in order that the zone be reachable > by all DNS initiators no matter what IP transport protocol they're using. > > i can see that the writing as quoted above is sloppy, and doesn't say what > i thought it said, and i can clean it up if the WG thinks it's important.
<hat wg-co-chair="off" just-another-bozo="on"> I think that clarifying this would be advisable, as the present wording is subject to misinterpretation. Given how long the WG has spun on this draft, I'd recommend doing it just by proposing a replacement for the sentence quoted above, getting agreement on the list that it says what you meant it to see, but holding off on spinning a revised draft until any other comments are in, and restricting the subsequent revision to changes already discussed on the list, otherwise we'll still be at this next year. Pedantic nit while we're at it: while I understand your use of the term "transport protocol" here, it's at odds with conventional use of the term in the IETF. You're talking about transport over multiple versions of IP (ie, multiple protocols at layer 3, not layer 4). Don't know whether it's worth trying to fix that while at this. </hat> _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
