To:
Robert Elz <kre@munnari.OZ.AU>
cc:
ngtrans@sunroof.eng.sun.com, namedroppers@ops.ietf.org, ipng@sunroof.eng.sun.com, dnsop@cafax.se
From:
Bernard Aboba <aboba@internaut.com>
Date:
Thu, 9 Aug 2001 20:14:18 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To:
<4216.997348572@brandenburg.cs.mu.OZ.AU>
Sender:
owner-dnsop@cafax.se
Subject:
Re: (ngtrans) Joint DNSEXT & NGTRANS summary
> 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 believe that it was Pogo that said:
"We have met the enemy... and it is us."
Rather than worrying so much about what this or that company might do, the
IETF might better spend its time and energy making clear decisions within
a reasonable timeframe.
Most IPv6 implementors will need to make a decision on how to handle
AAAA/A6 in the next 6 months. Without guidance from the IETF, history
suggests that they will each make the decision based on their own
analysis, and then once having shipped, less flexibility will be
available in order to accomodate the installed base.
We've already gone down this road with IKE -- where the most basic
VPN scenarios do not interoperate.
In many cases "no decision" is actually the worst possible decision.