IPv6 Router Advertisement Options for DNS Configuration
RFC 6106

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 08 and is now closed.

(Jari Arkko) Yes

(Ron Bonica) (was Discuss) No Objection

(Stewart Bryant) No Objection

Comment (2010-06-30 for -)
No email
send info
The following statement seems arguable at best:

"This is because learning DNS information via the RA options cannot be worse than learning bad router information via the RA options."

(Gonzalo Camarillo) No Objection

(Ralph Droms) No Objection

(Lars Eggert) No Objection

Comment (2010-09-08 for -)
No email
send info
INTRODUCTION, paragraph 4:
>    This document specifies IPv6 Router Advertisement options to allow
>    IPv6 routers to advertise a list of DNS recursive server addresses
>    and a DNS search list to IPv6 hosts.

  Please add one sentence that says that this obsoleted RFC5006 and what
  the differences are.

Section 5.3.2., paragraph 2:
>    Second, if different DNS information is provided on different network
>    interfaces, this can lead to inconsistent behavior.  The IETF is
>    working on solving this problem for both DNS and other information in
>    Multiple Interfaces (MIF) working group.

  RFCs are permanent, and referring to ephemeral WGs will be a bit
  confusing a few years down the road. Suggest to talk about the IETF
  instead and maybe informally refer to some documents from the MIF WG
  by reference.

(Adrian Farrel) No Objection

(David Harrington) No Objection

Comment (2010-06-29 for -)
No email
send info
n section 6.2, I do not understand the text "from being used any more for certain reasons in network management,". Can you clarify the reasons and the relation to network management?

(Russ Housley) (was Discuss) No Objection

(Alexey Melnikov) No Objection

(Dan Romascanu) No Objection

Comment (2010-06-30 for -)
No email
send info
1. Same comment as DBH - I do not understand what are the 'certain reasons in network management' mentioned in 6.2 and 6.3 and I would suggest that these are either explained or taken out. 

2. I do not believe that the title of the document after approval needs to carry RFC 5006bis as the fact that it obsoletes RFC 5006 will be part of the first page header.

(Peter Saint-Andre) No Objection

(Robert Sparks) (was Discuss) No Objection

(Sean Turner) (was Discuss) No Objection