Re: 6MAN WG Adoption call : draft-jeong-6man-rdnss-rfc6106-bis

[Ole Troan <[e-mail]>]

Mark,

> There is also a problem with only using a subset of DNSSL options because they won't convey the equivalent service/values unless multiple DNSSL options have exactly the same values, unlike (in theory) RDNSS values.
> 
> For example, 3 x DNSSL of example.com, example.org and example.net, if the host ignores example.net DNSSL, then any relative lookups for hostnames within example.net that don't exist in example.com or example.org will be looked up in root, and perhaps resolve unexpectedly if they're for one of the new vanity GTLDs.
> 
> In other words, a host should remember completely the set of unique DNSSL values it receives, because they're each expressing something different. The set of unique DNSSL values are not equivalents, so none of them should be ignored.

agree.
it does indeed seem wrong that a host should have a "sufficient number" of DNSSLs.
e.g. this text treating RDNSS and DNSSL the same:

   When the IPv6 host has gathered a sufficient number (e.g., three) of
   RDNSS addresses (or DNS search domain names), it SHOULD maintain
   RDNSS addresses (or DNS search domain names) by the sufficient number
   such that the latest received RDNSS or DNSSL is more preferred to the
   old ones; that is, when the number of RDNSS addresses (or DNS search
   domain names) is already the sufficient number, the new one replaces
   the old one that will expire first in terms of Lifetime.

greatly appreciated if you could contribute new text. is this limited to section 5.3.1?

cheers,
Ole