Re: Radical Surgery proposal: stop doing reverse for IPv6.

[Edward Lewis <edlewis@arin.net>]

This thread is a strong symptom of the (appearance of the) IETF 
degenerating into a debating society.  It's not the topic, it's the 
path of the discussion.

Whether or not reverse for IPv6 is done is not the real question.

The real questions are:

1) Will $<approach> for doing IPv6 reverse work?

2) If there are multiple positive answers to the above, do we need to 
find a best approach and/or what set of approaches having positive 
answers are interoperable?

3) If there is no positive answer to the above, is there a compelling 
need to continue searching for an approach that will work?

So -
      of the approaches proposed to date, which ones 'work'?

And -
      does anyone want to make the compelling case we need despite the
      fact that there is apparently no 'working' approaches?  (Is so,
      this is input to the draft cited earlier in the thread.)

PS - I think it would be unwise to explicitly write off any effort in 
any context.  I can understand allocating no resources to an effort 
(effectively killing it via starvation) or ignoring an effort 
(banishing it).  But I don't see a reason to declare that no one 
shall continue to work on (the royal) 'it'.

Perhaps this is a reaction to an unintended interpretation of the 
wording of the proposal.

-- 
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Edward Lewis                                          +1-703-227-9854
ARIN Research Engineer

#----------------------------------------------------------------------
# To unsubscribe, send a message to <dnsop-request@cafax.se>.