Re: Experimental ICMP Domain Name messages - RFC-to-be

Scott Bradner <sob@newdev.harvard.edu> Mon, 20 March 1995 12:54 UTC

Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa01928; 20 Mar 95 7:54 EST
Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa01924; 20 Mar 95 7:54 EST
Received: from ietf.cnri.reston.va.us by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa04025; 20 Mar 95 7:54 EST
Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa01917; 20 Mar 95 7:54 EST
Received: from newdev.harvard.edu by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa01913; 20 Mar 95 7:54 EST
Received: (from sob@localhost) by newdev.harvard.edu (8.6.9/8.6.9-MT2.02) id HAA04750; Mon, 20 Mar 1995 07:58:13 -0500 (EST)
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 1995 07:58:13 -0500
X-Orig-Sender: iesg-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Scott Bradner <sob@newdev.harvard.edu>
Message-Id: <199503201258.HAA04750@newdev.harvard.edu>
To: pvm@isi.edu
Subject: Re: Experimental ICMP Domain Name messages - RFC-to-be
Cc: iesg@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US

Paul,
	I came in late to the IPng PARC meeting where Bill had said that
the DNS? WG had 'adopted' this idea.  The IPng WG (or at least the people
I talked to ) seemed to think that it made some things, like autoregistration
easier and if the DNS people were going to do it it was a Good Idea and
the WG should go with it.

	Well things did not turn out to be all that simple, the DNS people
had not adopted the idea quite as much as the IPng WG had understood from
what Bill had said.

	Bill wanted this document to be progressed as a Proposed Std
along with the rest of the IPng docs.  After an exchange of messages between
Bill, Randy Bush and myself, Bill was convinced that there was not general
agreement on the idea and that it was not going to get accepted for
advancement to Proposed.  At that point Bill or Randy suggested that
Experimental would be a reasonable path and I agreed.

	So the bottom line is that at PARC the IPng WG understood that 
the DNS people had adopted this idea for IPv4 and that it looked right
for IPng.  I would not say that the WG currently "has really given up on the
reverse domain" but the topic must be brought up again.

Scott