Last Call Review of draft-ietf-6man-rfc6724-update-18
review-ietf-6man-rfc6724-update-18-dnsdir-lc-cunat-2025-03-31-00

Review assigned by dnsdir.  My thoughts are more like "no objection".

I've read through the whole document but not in too much depth and - more
importantly - I don't feel like an expert on this particular topic, though this
draft does make sense to me.  I wanted to focus on DNS aspects here, but there
are basically none: while IP(v6) addresses are very often retrieved from DNS,
in this case the separation seems pretty high.

- - -
A loosely related DNS consideration did came to mind - as DNS resolvers very
often have to choose which IP address to ask from a particular set (which could
be spread across multiple NS names).  But in this case, I don't think that ULAs
are expected to be special-cased, except maybe ignored if appearing in public
DNS as nameserver addresses.  In public DNS ULAs aren't expected/recommended
anywhere (as restated here in 9.2) and in case they're locally configured for
some DNS subtree, I believe the resolver operator chooses by hand.  In any
case, resolvers tend to have resilience by design for cases when some
nameserver IPs are inaccessible or significantly slower than others.