Re: [DNSOP] Erik Kline's Discuss on draft-ietf-dnsop-svcb-https-08: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Ben Schwartz <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, Mar 3, 2022 at 3:44 AM Erik Kline via Datatracker <[e-mail]>
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