To:
dnsop@cafax.se
From:
"Eric A. Hall" <ehall@ehsco.com>
Date:
Thu, 06 Nov 2003 23:16:15 -0600
In-Reply-To:
<20031106175134.6CB0118F8@thrintun.hactrn.net>
Sender:
owner-dnsop@cafax.se
User-Agent:
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20031007
Subject:
Re: Sense of the WG on DNS discovery
Rob Austein wrote:
> - DHCPv6-Lite appears to have more support than the other alternatives.
>
> - DHCPv6-Lite does not appear to have any show-stopper problems.
Is there an I-D describing DNS discovery over DHCPv6-lite yet?
The last major discussion on this subject was in July. There was a lot of
hand-waving about how easy it would be to use this technology for this
service ("just do x, and y, and zz,"), but no effort has yet been made to
my knowledge at actually deonstrating this simplicity with an I-D that
actually describes the basic mechanics of the approach. I mean, there at
least needs to be a discussion on client-side sorting and/or weighting
algorithms for those cases when multiple answers are received, just so
folks can see that this approach might actually work, or to get an idea at
how difficult it will be. How can there be consensus on a proposal when
said proposal does not exist?
> The question to the WG here is not "Do you agree that DHCPv6-Lite is
> the best choice?" (we know that some would disagree with that), but
> rather "Do you agree that this is the sense of the WG?"
There does not appear to be any such consensus.
--
Eric A. Hall http://www.ehsco.com/
Internet Core Protocols http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/coreprot/
#----------------------------------------------------------------------
# To unsubscribe, send a message to <dnsop-request@cafax.se>.