To:
"Nathan Jones" <nathanj@optimo.com.au>, <ngtrans@sunroof.eng.sun.com>, <namedroppers@ops.ietf.org>, <ipng@sunroof.eng.sun.com>, <dnsop@cafax.se>
From:
"Tony Hain" <alh-ietf@tndh.net>
Date:
Mon, 13 Aug 2001 18:45:26 -0700
Importance:
Normal
In-Reply-To:
<20010813140229.C4458@connect.com.au>
Reply-To:
<alh-ietf@tndh.net>
Sender:
owner-dnsop@cafax.se
Subject:
RE: (ngtrans) Joint DNSEXT & NGTRANS summary
Well I told the other chairs to let the discussion on this thread continue through today as a mechanism to allow consensus to emerge, and then I would step up and try to summarize. As Matt noted in originating the thread there was no absolutely overwhelming position by those in the room in London, but to a degree that really doesn't matter. What matters is the position of those participating in the mail lists. What the question in London did was allow the chairs and IESG observers to gauge the distinction between a few very loud voices vs. a broad based level of support, and gauge how many had a willingness to express an opinion on the subject (which from what I could tell was everyone). Nathan and Bernard have a good start to the summary, in terms of boiling down the essential viewpoints. The things I would add from the discussion include: - It is clear that we know how to make A6 resolvers deal with AAAA clients. - It appears that with current tools A6 reduces the burden of renumbering on the zone administrator. - It is not clear that renumbering will occur faster than a AAAA zone file could be resigned. - It is clear that we could evolve from AAAA to A6 later if it became necessary. Additionally: - It is clear that on either path we need better tools for DNS management. - It is also clear that address renumbering can't be solved simply through DNS magic. Shortly, an Internet-Draft will be sent to the lists that describes the rough consensus (possibly very rough) of the joint group and recommends a course of action to the IESG. For this reason it would be inappropriate for the IESG to be asked to arbitrate the creation of a recommendation to themselves. While the WG chairs are listed as authors, it is still an I-D subject to comment and editing like any other. If you feel the positions presented in the draft do not represent the collective working group opinion, speak up. Tony -----Original Message----- From: owner-ipng@sunroof.eng.sun.com [mailto:owner-ipng@sunroof.eng.sun.com]On Behalf Of Nathan Jones Sent: Sunday, August 12, 2001 9:02 PM To: ngtrans@sunroof.eng.sun.com; namedroppers@ops.ietf.org; ipng@sunroof.eng.sun.com; dnsop@cafax.se Subject: Re: (ngtrans) Joint DNSEXT & NGTRANS summary A6 supporters have spent a lot of time promoting flexibility, arguing that we shouldn't limit our options because of fear of what might happen. AAAA supporters have spent a lot of time telling us that such flexibility is not required and that possible A6 implementation problems can't be fixed just by making recommendations for DNS administrators. The debate has gone on and on, but no consensus has been reached. (I don't consider hums at London's meeting to be consensus.) Is there merit in asking the Area Directors (or possibly the IESG) for arbitration? -- nathanj Matt Crawford wrote: >Here's the problem. There was no attempt at consenus *building* after >the discussion, only a quick measurement of opinions at that point. Bernard Aboba wrote: >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. > >In many cases "no decision" is actually the worst possible decision. -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng Direct all administrative requests to majordomo@sunroof.eng.sun.com --------------------------------------------------------------------