Subject: [DNSOP] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc7816bis-11: (with COMMENT)

From: Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2021 13:15:06 -0700

Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc7816bis-11: No Objection

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/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc7816bis/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you for the work put into this document. A simple but efficient technique.

Thank you also for addressing completely my previous blocking DISCUSS. It is
now cleared.

Special thanks to Tim Wicinski for his shepherd's write-up notably about the WG
consensus.

I hope that this helps to improve the document,

Regards,

-éric

== PREVIOUS DISCUSS (no more valid) ==

-- Section 2.1 --
I support Erik Kline's COMMENT on this and am raising it to a blocking DISCUSS.

A/ in all the discussion in the last §, a AAAA would have the same benefit when
compared to a NS QTYPE. Or what did I miss ?

B/ the last two sentences "Another potential benefit...happy eyeballs query for
the A QTYPE." are puzzling as using A QTYPE will actually only cache the A
answer for the minimized request and more and more Internet users are using
IPv6 nowadays (and possibly even more recursive DNS servers).

Hence, I would welcome some discussion in the last § about the benefit of using
A QTYPE rather than AAAA QTYPE and, as suggested by Erik Kline, please remove
the last 2 sentences.