To:
crawdad@fnal.gov (Matt Crawford)
Cc:
ngtrans@sunroof.eng.sun.com, namedroppers@ops.ietf.org, ipng@sunroof.eng.sun.com, dnsop@cafax.se
From:
Bill Manning <bmanning@ISI.EDU>
Date:
Tue, 7 Aug 2001 03:18:33 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To:
<200108071010.f77AAYm24838@gungnir.fnal.gov> from "Matt Crawford" at Aug 07, 2001 05:10:34 AM
Sender:
owner-dnsop@cafax.se
Subject:
Re: Joint DNSEXT & NGTRANS summary
% There was a lot of discussion, culminating with a "hum" on the
% following four choices:
%
% 1. Deploy A6 in full panoply, synthesize AAAA for transition period
% 2. Deploy A6 conservatively ("A6 0"), synthesize as above
% 3. Reclassify A6 as experimental, use AAAA for production
% 4. Reclasify A6 as historic, use AAAA for production.
I took a (perhaps) stricter view on these four choices:
1) A6 stays on Stds track, syth AAAA when needed, AAAA is
depricated
2) A6 stays on Stds track, tempered by a recommendation to
operationally use A6 0.
3) Leave AAAA on Stds track, move A6 to experimental.
4) Move A6 to historic, leave AAAA on Stds track.
% The relative volumes of the hum seemed to be 3 > 2 > 1 > 4, by all
% accounts. There was quite obviously no consensus (i.e., unanimity)
% or rough consensus (in the usual IETF sense of near-unanimity). It
% could not even be concluded that the loudest hum represented a
% majority of those voicing an opinion.
That was my impression as well.
--bill