Experimental ICMP Domain Name messages - RFC-to-be

jkrey@isi.edu Thu, 16 March 1995 17:05 UTC

Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa06168; 16 Mar 95 12:05 EST
Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa06164; 16 Mar 95 12:05 EST
Received: from ietf.cnri.reston.va.us by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa10088; 16 Mar 95 12:05 EST
Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa06143; 16 Mar 95 12:05 EST
Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa06139; 16 Mar 95 12:05 EST
Received: from venera.isi.edu by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa10056; 16 Mar 95 12:05 EST
Received: from akamai.isi.edu by venera.isi.edu (5.65c/5.61+local-21) id <AA23285>; Thu, 16 Mar 1995 09:05:16 -0800
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 1995 09:06:31 -0800
X-Orig-Sender: iesg-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: jkrey@isi.edu
Posted-Date: Thu, 16 Mar 1995 09:06:31 -0800
Message-Id: <199503161706.AA02054@akamai.isi.edu>
Received: by akamai.isi.edu (5.65c/4.0.3-4) id <AA02054>; Thu, 16 Mar 1995 09:06:31 -0800
To: iesg@isi.edu
Subject: Experimental ICMP Domain Name messages - RFC-to-be
Cc: rfc-editor@isi.edu


Folks,

The RFC Editor has received this Experimental RFC-to-be 
submission from Bill Simpson.  Is this kosher to the IESG?

Joyce and --jon.

----- Begin Included Message -----

Date: Tue, 7 Mar 95 22:48:14 GMT
From: "William Allen Simpson" <bsimpson@morningstar.com>
To: rfc-editor@ISI.EDU
Subject: Experimental ICMP Domain Name messages

In accordance with communcations with the DNSIND WG Chair, and an IPng
Area Director, I will be submitting an Experimental Protocol for
publication.  I will send you nroff and text, per usual.


> From: randy@psg.com (Randy Bush)
> Subject: Re: Proposed or Experimental?
>
> I will propose it to the group as experimental.  This may help deflect heat
> from Bill, though that might dissapoint him. :-)
>
> > I will say that if this type of thing is not agreed to it does complicate
> > some of the IPng autoconfiguration issues.
>
> I suspect that it may not be that Bill's proposal is itself disliked.  It
> may be that a bunch of issues including SIG security may be causing folk to
> be reluctant to let go of the in-addr.arpa (or v6.int or whatever) zone.

> From: Scott Bradner <sob@newdev.harvard.edu>
> Bill has a point, this would have to be redone for IPv6 and thus currently
> refers to IPv4 - as such I'd support it going to Experimental now and
> still have the general topic brought up in Danvers to see if it should be
> further explored for IPv6.
>
It should be exactly identical for v6, but have different ICMP types.

Bill.Simpson@um.cc.umich.edu


----- End Included Message -----