Re: Stephen Farrell's Discuss on draft-ietf-6man-rdnss-rfc6106bis-15: (with DISCUSS)

[Fernando Gont <[e-mail]>]

On 01/19/2017 09:51 AM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
> Stephen Farrell has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-6man-rdnss-rfc6106bis-15: Discuss
> 
> 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 IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
> 
> 
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6man-rdnss-rfc6106bis/
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> DISCUSS:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> I think this is the first "configure my DNS" thing to come
> before the IESG since DPRIVE has gotten an output, so it seems
> fair to ask now:
> 
> Why doesn't the DNS server information include a port now that
> we have both 53 and 853 as options?  Without that, how is a
> host supposed to know which to use? Did the WG consider
> DPRIVE? If so, what was the conclusion? If not, what is the
> right thing to do? (Add the port no? Define a new DHCPv6 option
> for DNS/TLS? Something else?)

FWIW, this is a revision of an existing standard, aimed at fixing known
problems. Giving how critical it is to IPv6 deployment to convey DNS
information, I'd personally expect that something like you suggest
(which is sensible), would be done in a separate document -- e.g., in a
brand-new option.

Thanks,
-- 
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: [e-mail]
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492