To:
dnsop@cafax.se
From:
Rob Austein <sra+dnsop@hactrn.net>
Date:
Sat, 02 Aug 2003 13:11:28 -0400
In-Reply-To:
<002301c35895$f9b5abb0$c470fe81@etri.re.kr>
Sender:
owner-dnsop@cafax.se
User-Agent:
Wanderlust/2.10.0 (Venus) Emacs/20.7 Mule/4.0 (HANANOEN)
Subject:
Re: Policy of IPv6 DNS Discovery
At Sat, 2 Aug 2003 10:32:42 +0900, Jaehoon Jeong wrote: > > A unique solution can not cover every environment, I think. Sorry, but that turns out not to be the case. It's fairly obvious to anyone who has taken the trouble to understand how DHCP works that DHCPv6-lite would work in pretty much every environment we've been discussing. Apparently some people just don't like DHCP. > It seems be time for related ADs and Chairs to negotiate and decide > the policy for DNS discovery. After that, we engineers will be able > to develop more practical solution mechanisms according to the > direction. I'm not sure why you insist on a public repetition of an exchange that you and I already had when you pestered me about this in private, but whatever. The reason why this topic was moved from the IPv6 WG to the DNSOP WG was to force a real discussion of requirements before proposing solutions. In particular, we're required to answer the question which the IPv6 WG declined to ask: given DHCPv6 (including DHCPv6-lite), what real need is there for further work in this space? This discussion is finally taking place on the DNSOP mailing list, albiet in fits and starts. Discussion of new protocol extensions (such as your draft) will be in scope (for some WG, probably not DNSOP) if and only if this discussion concludes that there's a gap between real requirements and existing protocols. #---------------------------------------------------------------------- # To unsubscribe, send a message to <dnsop-request@cafax.se>.