Re: Last Call: <draft-iab-2870bis-01.txt> (DNS Root Name Service Protoco

Paul Hoffman <paul(_dot_)hoffman(_at_)vpnc(_dot_)org> wrote:
    >> Paul:
    >>
    >>> |      MUST support IPv4[RFC0791] and IPv6[RFC2460] transport of DNS
    >>> |      queries and responses.
    >>>
    >>> This needs an addition: "Some servers in the root name service might
    >>>not support IPv4, and some might not support IPv6." Without that, some
    >>>people might think that each server must respond on both layer 3
    >>>technologies, but they do not.

    >> I would like to see each and every root server support both IPv4 and 
IPv6.

    > So would I. But is that a *requirement*, particularly given that the
    > root service seems to run just fine today without it?

I would like every A-M.root-servers.net have an A and AAAA record.

I don't care how the root-server operators decide to partition to workload
among hardware.  Over time we will need more v6 responders and fewer v4
responders.
I don't think that there is, or should be, any requirement that v4 and v6 be
answered by the same system, and given anycast, they might even be in
different locations.

I think that the current text captures this just fine:

   The root name service:
      ...
      MUST support IPv4[RFC0791] and IPv6[RFC2460] transport of DNS
      queries and responses.

because it focuses on the root name *service* from an external functional
point of view, and not from a design point of view.

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF(_at_)sandelman(_dot_)ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-

pgpMs9OHuMjE9.pgp
Description: PGP signature