To:
crawdad@fnal.gov (Matt Crawford)
Cc:
ngtrans@sunroof.eng.sun.com, namedroppers@ops.ietf.org, ipng@sunroof.eng.sun.com, dnsop@cafax.se
From:
Bill Manning <bmanning@ISI.EDU>
Date:
Tue, 7 Aug 2001 03:18:33 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To:
<200108071010.f77AAYm24838@gungnir.fnal.gov> from "Matt Crawford" at Aug 07, 2001 05:10:34 AM
Sender:
owner-dnsop@cafax.se
Subject:
Re: Joint DNSEXT & NGTRANS summary
% There was a lot of discussion, culminating with a "hum" on the % following four choices: % % 1. Deploy A6 in full panoply, synthesize AAAA for transition period % 2. Deploy A6 conservatively ("A6 0"), synthesize as above % 3. Reclassify A6 as experimental, use AAAA for production % 4. Reclasify A6 as historic, use AAAA for production. I took a (perhaps) stricter view on these four choices: 1) A6 stays on Stds track, syth AAAA when needed, AAAA is depricated 2) A6 stays on Stds track, tempered by a recommendation to operationally use A6 0. 3) Leave AAAA on Stds track, move A6 to experimental. 4) Move A6 to historic, leave AAAA on Stds track. % The relative volumes of the hum seemed to be 3 > 2 > 1 > 4, by all % accounts. There was quite obviously no consensus (i.e., unanimity) % or rough consensus (in the usual IETF sense of near-unanimity). It % could not even be concluded that the loudest hum represented a % majority of those voicing an opinion. That was my impression as well. --bill