Subject: Re: draft-reid-ipv6ok-00.txt

From: [email-masked] (Andreas Gustafsson)
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 12:07:17 -0800 (PST)

[ post by non-subscriber.  with the massive amount of spam, it is easy to
  miss and therefore delete mis-posts.  so fix subscription addresses! ]

I don't see the point of draft-reid-ipv6ok-00.  The draft seems to be
based on the assumption that inclusion of AAAA records in a DNS
response as a result of additional section processing would cause
truncation and fallback to TCP, but that is not the case - see RFC2181
section 9:

   The TC bit should be set in responses only when an RRSet is required
   as a part of the response, but could not be included in its entirety.
   The TC bit should not be set merely because some extra information
   could have been included, but there was insufficient room.  This
   includes the results of additional section processing.  In such cases
   the entire RRSet that will not fit in the response should be omitted,
   and the reply sent as is, with the TC bit clear.

Also, the draft seems to prohibit a server from returning AAAA records
as part of the response to an QTYPE=ANY query by a non-ipv6ok-aware
resolver (though I'm not sure if this is intentional or not).  This
would be a non-backwards-compatible change to the semantics of an ANY
query.  It would also make ANY queries much less useful for
troubleshooting purposes (which is about the only thing they currently
are useful for).  Finally, it makes little sense to single out AAAA
records to be omitted from the response to an ANY query out of size
concerns while including much larger records such as KEY and SIG.
-- 
Andreas Gustafsson, [email-masked]

--
to unsubscribe send a message to [email-masked] with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/>