Re: Last Call: Representing IPv6 addresses in DNS to Proposed Standard

[Nathan Jones <[e-mail]>]

Having been away from the list for a while, the arguments against this
draft have already been discussed. I'm sending this message to note
that I also object to draft-ietf-dnsext-ipv6-addresses-01.txt.

As I see it, the role of the IETF is to provide flexible standards
that enable people to do things, not to tell people that they can't
use certain functionality by deprecating the specification.

It cannot be said that there is consensus to progress this draft.
It can be said that is insufficient technical argument to deprecate
A6 and DNAME. Most of the anti-A6 argument appears to say "we don't
think you need easier renumbering, etc. so we'll take away the RR
types and tell you to find a work around".

In terms of administration, I believe A6 is only a little more complex
than AAAA, and that administrators will cope just fine if there are
guidelines available.

Has anyone yet started work on a draft to document guidelines for the
usage of DNS with IPv6? (eg. recommended limits on A6 chains, etc.)

-- 
Nathan Jones
[e-mail]

On Thu, Mar 14, 2002 at 10:26:24AM -0500, The IESG wrote:
>The IESG has received a request from the DNS Extensions Working Group
>to consider Representing IPv6 addresses in DNS
><draft-ietf-dnsext-ipv6-addresses-01.txt> as a Proposed Standard.
>
>The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
>final comments on this action.  Please send any comments to the
>[e-mail] or [e-mail] mailing lists by April 2, 2002.

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