Paul A Vixie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I see a big difference between deprecating/moving to historic and changing
> > status to experimental. Experemental implies further development.
>
> I don't see that difference here. Just as "let's let the market decide"
> really just means "let's do whatever Microsoft wants", so it is that "let's
> make it experimental" really just means "let's move on." (I find it amusing
> that SRV was experimental but that Microsoft's use of it pulled it forward.)
>
> I was not able to be in London, but had I been there my comments would've been:
>
> Let's not expect stub resolvers to do the caching necessary to
> understand either A6 or SIG/KEY -- those are things which servers
> ought to use to talk to other servers. Stub resolvers making
> recursive requests of their name servers should be using AAAA and
> TSIG. AAAA synthesis of underlying A6, and TSIG to protect
> verified KEY/SIG data for the last mile, is all a client needs.
> Every argument against SIG/KEY or against A6 comes down to either
> the caching problem or the complexity problem, and if we insulate
> the end-stations from those problems, the arguments are reduced to
> things which authority-side tools can be made to cope with.
>
> Hopefully this point was made by somebody.
It was made, but not as succinctly. However, AAAA synthesis was mostly
presented as a transition mechanism leading towards an A6-only future.
I think that is a mistake and what worries people who are satisfied
with their working AAAA-based stub resolver.
Your point (in another mail) about renumbering as a defence againg
being locked in by your provider was definitely not made.
Johan Ihren
Autonomica
