Date: 16 Mar 2001 01:16:57 -0000
From: "D. J. Bernstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| If you
| have some other constraint in mind, please say exactly what it is, so
| that we can see whether the constrained feature is reliable and useful.
I suspect this is a pointless discussion, as neither A6 nor DNAME is
going to be made historic before there's ever been any realistic chance
to experiment with them and discover whether they are workable or not.
But if one were forced to add a constraint to A6, it may be that it
would only be legal to refer to names in the same zone (servers can
enforce that trivially when loading the zone, resolvers could ignore
any responses that didn't include the complete chain in one packet).
But until we see how well it works in practice, we won't know whether
there is even any point discussing any of this - this is the kind of
thing that should be being discussed when the doc is ready to be considered
to be advanced to DS status, and we're certainly not there yet.
kre
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
