Erik Kline has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-dnsop-svcb-https-08: 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/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-svcb-https/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- DISCUSS: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- [Appendix D.2] * Sorry to be super nitpicky/petty about this. With respect to Figure 7: IPv4-mapped IPv6 addresses have a complicated history (see RFC 4942 S2.2 for an amuse-bouche, as well as itojun's draft-itojun-v6ops-v4mapped-harmful). Unless there is something very useful to be gained by the inclusion of this example (what?) I would strongly suggest removing it. I fear it will only cause confusion. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- [S2.3; comment] * "When a prior CNAME or SVCB record has aliased to a SVCB record, each RR shall be returned under its own owner name." I think this could use some explanation and a reference to Section 11. Perhaps something along the lines of This is in account of the client resolution process [Section 3]. See also discussion in [Section 11.1]. _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
