Hi,
This has been my concern about modifying the text too much.
There hasn't been too much discussion on the text proposal, so I
suspect many in the WG do not care much one way or the other.
I think your suggestion is a good one, and I've now written this
section as:
=========
5.2 Obtaining a List of DNS Recursive Resolvers
Obtaining the list of DNS recursive resolvers is a subject of active
debate; no consensus has been reached as of this writing (April
2004).
In scenarios where DHCPv6 is available, a host can discover a list
of DNS resolvers through DHCPv6 "DNS Recursive Name Server" option
[29]. This option can be passed to a host through a subset of DHCPv6
[28].
In scenarios where DHCPv6 is unavailable or inappropriate,
mechanisms under consideration for development of dnsop WG include
the use of well-known addresses [26], the use of Router
Advertisements to convey the information [27].
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.
========
This is what I'm going to use unless I hear objections or suggestions
for rewording ASAP.
Note: let's not start a discussion of what those "unavailable or
inappropriate" scenarios could be.
On Mon, 12 Apr 2004, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> On 9-apr-04, at 8:26, Pekka Savola wrote:
>
> > 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?
>
> Someone who isn't aware of the issue (and if we assume everyone is, why
> include any text?) might take this to mean that using DHCP is the way
> to go and/or without problems, which IMO isn't the case. I think
> working it something like "In situations where DHCPv6 is available, a
> host can discover a list of DNS resolvers through [...] Ways to
> discover or configure DNS resolvers in situations where DHCPv6 isn't
> available or appropriate are under consideration [...]".
>
> If we feel it's necessary to provide guidance to implementers it would
> be good to say something about well-known addresses, as this solution
> has the interesting property that it can largely implemented before
> it's standardized. Pretty much all that's needed is a global list of
> DNS servers that is called upon when no "local" (specific to the active
> configuration, those of you who use a Mac know what I mean) information
> is available. Obviously the list should be empty at this time.
>
> .
> dnsop resources:_____________________________________________________
> web user interface: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/dnsop.html
> mhonarc archive: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/dnsop/index.html
>
--
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
