Matt,
>I suggest that discussion of DNS, which was not on the advance
>agenda, be considered not to have taken place. Some people with
>informed viewpoints were not present to correct various misstatements
>which, as far as the minutes show, went unchallenged.
It it's in the minutes it must have taken place. I don't usually take
notes on things that didn't take place :-)
The presentation was intended to be a report from the DNS directorate on
their discussion and recommendations on A6, DNAME, and bit-string
labels. The DNS directorate, like other directorates in the IETF, doesn't
have any official standing. It will make a recommendation to the DNSEXT
working group where a real discussion should happen. As you point out,
people with potentially differing views were not at the IPng interim meeting.
Would you like the minutes to be updated to make this clearer?
Bob
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
