Re: (ngtrans) Joint DNSEXT & NGTRANS summary

[James Aldridge <jhma@KPNQwest.net>]

Jim Bound wrote:
> I felt consensus for number 3 is my input.

That was my view too.  There certainly seemed to be consensus for using AAAA
records for production and deprecating A6 records (either as experimental or
historic)

--James

> 
> /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.)
> > 
> > 
>