All - I realize that my suggested text is not clear about what "under
consideration" means with regard to the use of well-known addresses and the
use of Router Advertisements, which means Pekka's suggested sentence about
"no consensus" may not be clear, either.

My understanding is that the dnsop WG is considering whether to take the
development of specifications for the use of well-known addresses and/or the
use of Router Advertisements on as WG work items.  If I have that right,
then the following paragraph might be more clear:

       A host can be configured with a list of DNS recursive resolvers
       through the DHCPv6 "DNS Recursive Name Server" option [RFC3646].
       This option can be passed to a host through a subset of DHCPv6
       [RFC3736].  Two alternative mechanisms are under consideration
       for development by the dnsop WG: the use of well-known
       addresses [21] and the use of Router Advertisements to convey
       the information [22].

My concern is that the original wording might leave the impression that an
implementor should wait for the dnsop WG to come to consensus on a
recommendation, and therefore do nothing now.

Practially speaking, this discussion may be moot if there is insufficient
interest in the WG to come to agreement on the wording of this paragraph...

- Ralph

At 09:26 AM 4/9/2004 +0300, Pekka Savola wrote:
Hi,

Ralph suggested changing section 5.2 on DNS resolver discovery to
better reflect to what's out there (but not reflect that there is no
consensus on the approach).  I think the proposed wording is a bit
biased toward using DHCP but not much.

I'd slightly modify his proposal to:

       A host can be configured with a list of DNS recursive resolvers
       through the DHCPv6 "DNS Recursive Name Server" option [RFC3646].
       This option can be passed to a host through a subset of DHCPv6
       [RFC3736].  Two alternative mechanisms are under consideration:
       the use of well-known addresses [21] and the use of Router
       Advertisements to convey the information [22].

No consensus has been reached as of this writing (April 2004).

What does the WG think about this -- That is,

Do you have a problem with the above wording?

    If yes, I won't adopt it, but use the original unless there are
    other suggestions.

If not, I'll use the rewording above, or something close to that.

On Wed, 7 Apr 2004, Ralph Droms wrote:
> I don't think section 5.2 accurately reflects the current state of
> specifications and discussion about recursive DNS resolver configuration:
>
> 5.2 Recursive DNS Resolver Discovery
>
> Recursive IPv6 DNS resolver discovery is a subject of active
> debate as of this writing (March 2003): the main proposed
> mechanisms include the use of well-known addresses [24], the use
> of Router Advertisements to convey the information [25], and
> using DHCPv6 (or the stateless subset of it [26]) for DNS
> resolver configuration [27]. No consensus has been reached yet.
>
> Note that IPv6 DNS resolver discovery is not required for
> dual-stack nodes in dual-stack networks as IPv6 DNS records can
> be queried over IPv4 as well as IPv6.
>
> I think the current situation regarding recursive DNS resolver configuration
> would be more accurately reflected by the following paragraph:
>
> 5.2 Obtaining a list of DNS Recursive Resolvers
>
> A host can be configured with a list of DNS recursive resolvers
> through the DHCPv6 "DNS Recursive Name Server" option [RFC3646].
> This option can be passed to a host through a subset of DHCPv6
> [RFC3736]. Two alternative mechanisms are under consideration:
> the use of well-known addresses [21] and the use of Router
> Advertisements to convey the information [22].
>
>
> I know this paragraph has been discussed before. It would be good to get
> other WG input to make sure the text reflects WG consensus on the subject.
>


--
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings


. dnsop resources:_____________________________________________________ web user interface: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/dnsop.html mhonarc archive: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/dnsop/index.html

. dnsop resources:_____________________________________________________ web user interface: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/dnsop.html mhonarc archive: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/dnsop/index.html

Reply via email to