On Fri, 16 Apr 2004, Ralph Droms wrote: > The suggested text is good, except I don't think the first sentence conveys > enough information for someone who has not been involved with the discussion > about obtaining a list of DNS resolvers. Specifically, no consensus has > been reached about what specific issue or issues (in para 1)? > > My understanding is that the current active debate is about whether the IETF > should take on any work to develop alternatives to DHCP. I suggest the > following text as more completely and accurately describing the current > situation:
I've taken roughly this text, with a change to: > The IETF is considering the development of alternative mechanisms > for obtaining the list of DNS recursive resolvers when DHCPv6 is > not available. s/not available/unavailable or inappropriate/. > Also - I finally got around to reviewing why the DHCP option is > called "DNS Recursive Name Server". Turns out RFC 1035 refers to > "recursive server" (top of page 7) and "recursive service" (several > places), so we used the name "DNS Recursive Name Server" for the option. > It might be appropriate to retitle this section to be "Obtaining a > List of DNS Recursive Servers". I changed this as well, even though I think "resolvers" is a better word for this, and already being used in other documents. If others have arguments about this, please speak up ASAP. -- 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
