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

"Stephen Farrell" <> Thu, 19 January 2017 12:51 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 548DF12007C; Thu, 19 Jan 2017 04:51:17 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: "Stephen Farrell" <>
To: "The IESG" <>
Subject: Stephen Farrell's Discuss on draft-ietf-6man-rdnss-rfc6106bis-15: (with DISCUSS)
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.40.3
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <>
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2017 04:51:17 -0800
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2017 12:51:17 -0000

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
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:


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?)