Re: [Driu] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-pusateri-dhc-dns-driu-00.txt

On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 9:09 PM Tom Pusateri <pusateri@bangj.com> wrote:

> I renamed the DHCPv6 DNS Discovery draft and submitted it. There are no
> other changes from the early version referenced on Github.
>
> Thanks,
> Tom
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
> *From: *internet-drafts@ietf.org
> *Subject: **New Version Notification for
> draft-pusateri-dhc-dns-driu-00.txt*
> *Date: *July 2, 2018 at 3:51:16 PM EDT
> *To: *"Willem Toorop" <willem@nlnetlabs.nl>, "Tom Pusateri" <
> pusateri@bangj.com>
>
>
> A new version of I-D, draft-pusateri-dhc-dns-driu-00.txt
> has been successfully submitted by Tom Pusateri and posted to the
> IETF repository.
>
> Name: draft-pusateri-dhc-dns-driu
> Revision: 00
> Title: DHCPv6 Options for private DNS Discovery
> Document date: 2018-07-02
> Group: Individual Submission
> Pages: 12
> URL:
> https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-pusateri-dhc-dns-driu-00.txt
> Status:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-pusateri-dhc-dns-driu/
> Htmlized:       https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-pusateri-dhc-dns-driu-00
> Htmlized:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-pusateri-dhc-dns-driu
>
>
> Abstract:
>   This draft provides a series of DHCPv6 options for a DHCPv6 client to
>   request from a DHCPv6 server to aid in configuring DNS servers that
>   support private requests/responses.
>
> ...

> DRIU mailing list
> DRIU@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/driu

-------
I have concern:

3. DHCPv6 Encapsulating Options

"There is no order
implied by the order of options sent or received. It is up to the
receiving client to determine which order to use the DNS server
configurations."

Let's not wait for some non-standard way to decide the order. Please add
'priority' (and possibly 'weight') fields to the "OPTION_DNS_TLS" now, like
in MX and SRV records.

-------
And a question:

Appendix A. ISC DHCPv6 Configuration Example

"option tls.adn code 228 = domain-list;

option tls.adn "dns.quad9.net";"

Why is this defined as a list, but only a single domain is configured. And
the text (in 1. Introduction) indicates only one domain is allowed per
option. Is there a single domain format that should be used?

-- 
Bob Harold