Re: Policy of IPv6 DNS Discovery

[Bob Hinden <hinden@iprg.nokia.com>]

Rob,

>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

I think the IPv6 w.g. did answer this question several times.  It concluded 
that it did want a solution in addition to DCHPv6.  For example from the 
minutes of the Salt Lake City IETF in December 2001:

    Deering took poll of room: How many people think w.g. should continue
    work on stateless DNS discovery? Consensus to continue work.

and again in the minutes of the Yokohama Japan Thursday, July 2002:

    Wasserman took poll for choices listed. Results were:

    1) Continue w/ existing proposal, Proposed Standard or Experimental:

    Consensus to standardize short term solution
    Consensus to continue work on current proposal.

    2) Accept DHCP in addition to current work

    Consensus to continue working on DHCPv6

    3) Requirements: Important to further develop requirements?

    Small consensus to not work on requirements

    4) Consider new short term solution:

    N/A

Also, a specific solution draft was accepted as a working group item.

This work was later removed from the IPv6 w.g. charter by the IESG and 
moved to this working group.

I would also note that at the Vienna meeting, a "hum" was taken in the 
DNSOP group and there was not a consensus that there should only be a 
DHCPv6 solution to this problem.

I conclude from this that there is a significant number of people who think 
that a solution is needed in addition to DHCPv6.

Regards,
Bob







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