Well I told the other chairs to let the discussion on this
thread continue through today as a mechanism to allow
consensus to emerge, and then I would step up and try to
summarize. As Matt noted in originating the thread there was
no absolutely overwhelming position by those in the room in
London, but to a degree that really doesn't matter. What
matters is the position of those participating in the mail
lists. What the question in London did was allow the chairs
and IESG observers to gauge the distinction between a few
very loud voices vs. a broad based level of support, and
gauge how many had a willingness to express an opinion on
the subject (which from what I could tell was everyone).
Nathan and Bernard have a good start to the summary, in
terms of boiling down the essential viewpoints. The things
I would add from the discussion include:
- It is clear that we know how to make A6 resolvers deal with
AAAA clients.
- It appears that with current tools A6 reduces the burden of
renumbering on the zone administrator.
- It is not clear that renumbering will occur faster than a
AAAA zone file could be resigned.
- It is clear that we could evolve from AAAA to A6 later if
it became necessary.
Additionally:
- It is clear that on either path we need better tools for
DNS management.
- It is also clear that address renumbering can't be solved
simply through DNS magic.
Shortly, an Internet-Draft will be sent to the lists that
describes the rough consensus (possibly very rough) of the
joint group and recommends a course of action to the IESG.
For this reason it would be inappropriate for the IESG to be
asked to arbitrate the creation of a recommendation to
themselves. While the WG chairs are listed as authors, it is
still an I-D subject to comment and editing like any other.
If you feel the positions presented in the draft do not
represent the collective working group opinion, speak up.
Tony
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf
Of Nathan Jones
Sent: Sunday, August 12, 2001 9:02 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: (ngtrans) Joint DNSEXT & NGTRANS summary
A6 supporters have spent a lot of time promoting flexibility, arguing
that we shouldn't limit our options because of fear of what might
happen.
AAAA supporters have spent a lot of time telling us that such
flexibility is not required and that possible A6 implementation
problems can't be fixed just by making recommendations for DNS
administrators.
The debate has gone on and on, but no consensus has been reached.
(I don't consider hums at London's meeting to be consensus.)
Is there merit in asking the Area Directors (or possibly the IESG)
for arbitration?
--
nathanj
Matt Crawford wrote:
>Here's the problem. There was no attempt at consenus *building* after
>the discussion, only a quick measurement of opinions at that point.
Bernard Aboba wrote:
>Rather than worrying so much about what this or that company might do, the
>IETF might better spend its time and energy making clear decisions within
>a reasonable timeframe.
>
>In many cases "no decision" is actually the worst possible decision.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
