On Thu, Mar 3, 2022 at 3:44 AM Erik Kline via Datatracker <nore...@ietf.org> wrote:
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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. > This example will be changed to present only the "IPv4-embedded syntax", removing the reference to IPv4-mapped IPv6 ( https://github.com/MikeBishop/dns-alt-svc/pull/362). ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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]. > Noted at https://github.com/MikeBishop/dns-alt-svc/issues/370
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
