To:
Matt Crawford <crawdad@fnal.gov>
Cc:
ngtrans@sunroof.eng.sun.com, namedroppers@ops.ietf.org, ipng@sunroof.eng.sun.com, dnsop@cafax.se
From:
Jim Bound <seamus@bit-net.com>
Date:
Tue, 7 Aug 2001 06:28:30 -0400 (EDT)
In-Reply-To:
<200108071010.f77AAYm24838@gungnir.fnal.gov>
Sender:
owner-dnsop@cafax.se
Subject:
Re: (ngtrans) Joint DNSEXT & NGTRANS summary
I felt consensus for number 3 is my input. /jim On Tue, 7 Aug 2001, Matt Crawford wrote: > I have overheard nearly opposite outcomes quoted by random people > in the halls, and some of the joint co-chairs (all the ones I've > asked so far) seem reluctant to say anything substantive in public > about the outcome of the joint dnsext/ngtrans meeting. I know there > are some interested parties who were not present and I have no idea > whether or how well they heard it on the mbone. So, here's my > view from the floor ... other views would be welcome, the sooner > the better. > > 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. > > 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. > > The difference in impressions taken away, therefore, I would account > for by differences in opinion about whether the preference of a > plurality, possibly a slim majority, represent a decision to alter the > status quo. (That being A6 on the standards track.) > >