To:
Matt Crawford <crawdad@fnal.gov>, ngtrans@sunroof.eng.sun.com, namedroppers@ops.ietf.org, ipng@sunroof.eng.sun.com, dnsop@cafax.se
From:
Marc Blanchet <Marc.Blanchet@viagenie.qc.ca>
Date:
Tue, 07 Aug 2001 08:01:17 -0400
In-Reply-To:
<200108071010.f77AAYm24838@gungnir.fnal.gov>
Sender:
owner-dnsop@cafax.se
Subject:
Re: Joint DNSEXT & NGTRANS summary
While I vote for 3, I do agree with your reading that:
- 3 > others
- the hummm was not cristal clear.
Marc.
At/À 05:10 2001-08-07 -0500, Matt Crawford you wrote/vous écriviez:
>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.)