To:
"Christian Huitema" <huitema@windows.microsoft.com>
cc:
"Paul A Vixie" <vixie@vix.com>, ngtrans@sunroof.eng.sun.com, namedroppers@ops.ietf.org, ipng@sunroof.eng.sun.com, dnsop@cafax.se
From:
Robert Elz <kre@munnari.OZ.AU>
Date:
Thu, 09 Aug 2001 16:16:12 +0700
In-Reply-To:
<F66A04C29AD9034A8205949AD0C9010418BF07@win-msg-02.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com>
Sender:
owner-dnsop@cafax.se
Subject:
Re: (ngtrans) Joint DNSEXT & NGTRANS summary
Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2001 01:31:28 -0700
From: "Christian Huitema" <huitema@windows.microsoft.com>
Message-ID: <F66A04C29AD9034A8205949AD0C9010418BF07@win-msg-02.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com>
| Just for the record -- Microsoft as a corporation did not try to sway
| this issue one way or the other;
That wasn't the way I read Paul's comment - I read it more as suggesting
that if the IETF doesn't pick one way or the other, and completely
stamp out the other (ie: if one gets marked as experimental, or if both
get left as PS), then you (Microsoft) will just pick whichever one that
appeals to you most, and that will effectively set the standard,
regardless of what any of the rest of us think later.
I suspect that's half right - what microsoft put in their clients would
only matter if they start doing A6 lookups - if they just do AAAA, then
AAAA synthesis can allow A6 deployment to work just fine.
I'm less convinced about the power of microsoft to sway the world via
the server behaviour.
The one thing that is pretty clear, is that if microsoft clients start
doing A6 queries to find IPv6 addresses, then it is A6 that the world will
deploy (we won't be synthesising A6 records out of AAAA, while possible,
that makes no sense at all).
kre