Re: [dns-privacy] [Ext] Dnsdir telechat review of draft-ietf-dprive-unilateral-probing-12

[Paul Hoffman <[e-mail]>]

I apologize for mis-reading your messages, multiple times. You are correct that the wording in the current document is incorrect. Thank you for your persistance.

On Sep 4, 2023, at 4:32 AM, Florian Obser via Datatracker <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Reviewer: Florian Obser
> Review result: Ready with Issues
> 
> -12 does not address the issues that were introduced in version -11.
> The status of my review does not change.
> 
> This is the text from the -11 review:
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>   For example, consider an authoritative server named ns0.example.com
>   that is served by two installations (with two A records), one at
>   192.0.2.7 that follows this guidance, and one at 2001:db8::8 that is
>   a legacy (cleartext port 53-only) deployment.
> 
> It doesn't have two A records. It has an A and AAAA record. I know
> that Éric asked for a non-legacy IP example, but I don't think this makes
> things better. I find it very confusing, usually the server would be
> dual stacked so why would it do different things depending on the
> address family? Maybe just go v6 only, thusly?
> 
>   For example, consider an authoritative server named ns0.example.com
>   that is served by two installations (with two AAAA records), one at
>   2001:db8::7 that follows this guidance, and one at 2001:db8::8 that is
>   a legacy (cleartext port 53-only) deployment.  A recursive client who
>   associates state with the NS name and reaches 2001:db8::7 first will
> 
> Same in 4.5:


Yep, agree, and that should keep our AD happy as well. We will make this change in -13.

--Paul Hoffman