Moin, > Good point. So maybe we do need a stand-alone BCP for this? Or > perhaps it should be added to section 7 of draft-ietf-6man-rfc8504- > bis? > > "IPv6 addresses for DNS servers SHOULD be preferred over IPv4."
This is pretty close to the 3901bis discussion in DNSOP atm; I would personally recommend not making this a stand-alone BCP; Things to consider (also for the proposed algorithm in the ticket at: https://github.com/timchown/rfc8504-bis/issues/20 ): - There is no HE for DNS; The proposed text basically creates that for stubs - RFC3901 (currently) covers authoritative and recursive servers, the issue here is about stubs Technically, the language planned for 3901bis makes v4 and v6 equal citizens, i.e., both SHOULD. The translation point is similar to: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-momoka-v6ops-ipv6-only-resolver/ Even though that draft is again resolver specific. I see three options for this: - Add the language independently in 8504bis as planned in the ticket - Integrate the part about resolution address selection from the draft above into 3901bis and also add stubs to the text - Move stubs and recursive servers (or maybe even each) into their own documents and bind them via BCP91 (which can also hold other DNS transport related things, including transport protocol selection, and technically 9715 (The 'big' solution i had mentioned before) Not arguing for any of the options atm; Just putting them out there to see what people think. With best regards, Tobias _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list -- dnsop@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to dnsop-le...@ietf.org
