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

Rob Austein <sra+namedroppers@hactrn.net> Fri, 29 March 2002 20:57 UTC

Received: from psg.com (exim@psg.com [147.28.0.62]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA03368 for <dnsext-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Fri, 29 Mar 2002 15:57:19 -0500 (EST)
Received: from lserv by psg.com with local (Exim 3.35 #1) id 16r3ET-0000tn-00 for namedroppers-data@psg.com; Fri, 29 Mar 2002 12:44:21 -0800
Received: from dsl092-066-067.bos1.dsl.speakeasy.net ([66.92.66.67] helo=thrintun.hactrn.net) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 16r3ES-0000th-00 for namedroppers@ops.ietf.org; Fri, 29 Mar 2002 12:44:20 -0800
Received: from thrintun.hactrn.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by thrintun.hactrn.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A23A1C11 for <namedroppers@ops.ietf.org>; Fri, 29 Mar 2002 15:44:19 -0500 (EST)
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 15:44:18 -0500
From: Rob Austein <sra+namedroppers@hactrn.net>
To: namedroppers@ops.ietf.org
Reply-To: namedroppers@ops.ietf.org
Subject: Re: Last Call: Representing IPv6 addresses in DNS to Proposed Standard
In-Reply-To: <y7v8z8bpoe1.wl@ocean.jinmei.org>
References: <200203141526.KAA19163@ietf.org> <20020327212727.B23106@connect.com.au> <2cu1r1lw8k.fsf@snout.autonomica.net> <20020328094454.A5859@connect.com.au> <g3hen18qvh.fsf@as.vix.com> <y7v8z8bpoe1.wl@ocean.jinmei.org>
User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.4.1 (Stand By Me) SEMI/1.13.7 (Awazu) FLIM/1.13.2 (Kasanui) Emacs/20.7 (i386--freebsd) MULE/4.0 (HANANOEN)
MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI 1.13.7 - "Awazu")
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Message-Id: <20020329204419.2A23A1C11@thrintun.hactrn.net>
Sender: owner-namedroppers@ops.ietf.org
Precedence: bulk

At Fri, 29 Mar 2002 21:08:38 +0900, JINMEI Tatuya wrote:
> 
> I'm not sure if my opinion above can convince DNS experts in this
> list...but I belive some amount of v6 community, especially those
> who're deploying IPv6, share the opinion.

Some of the "DNS experts" (if that's what we are) already agree with
you on this.  As I see it, the fundamental issue is that most of the
people trying to deploy IPv6 believe (1) that they have more urgent
concerns than this little DNS issue and (2) that they are more likely
to accomplish their main purpose by going with AAAA.  We could debate
whether this view is correct or not until the proverbial cows come
home, but I see little to be gained by doing so.

> In any case, it would be sure that we need some compromise here.  How
> can we make it?

The options that I can see are:

a) Accept the course of action recommended by the draft currently in
   last call, and with the understanding that this is and will remain
   at best a very rough consensus; or

b) Flip a coin, if everyone involved would be willing to abide by the
   result (probability of which left as an exercise for the reader); or

c) Sign the horse up for another year of singing lessons.

--Rob

References:

"Recommendations" section of draft-ietf-dnsext-ipv6-dns-tradeoffs-00.txt 
(disclaimer: I wrote it, YMMV);

"Conclusion" section of IEN 137 ("On Holy Wars and a Plea For Peace").

Fable sometimes referred to by the tag line "And Maybe The Horse Will
Sing", attributed to Herodotus.

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