> > I challenge any notion of altering the long effort of A6
>
> may i suggest that it might be more productive to discuss the engineering
> need (or not) for it, and stick to principles not personalities?
principles will be easier once we see a draft for sure. comment on
personalities was my input to experts I felt missing from the directorate.
just my opinion which I am free to state here.
> e.g. in the absense of rapid renumbering and gse or other non-v4 routing,
> what need is sufficiently important to justify a6? if there is none
> currently, but one arises in the future (and i sure hope something does
> arise for at least routing), then, if dns mechanisms are needed, appropriate
> ones can be specified. and those could be a6, i can't prejudge.
A6 was built, achieved consensus, and is being implemented to verify it
works for rapid renumbering.
> in the meantime, it would be a real bummer if the current a6 spec, for which
> there seems to be little documented actual need, was to prejudice designs
> for critical problems such as routing because some interesting approach
> would not work with a6.
I cannot see A6 doing the above but I await the draft/report eagerly to
here the logic why this is valid. I will respond with technical
commentary to the technical issues the Directorate states to warrant
over-turning the consensus of the IPng working group to make several
important DNS IPng specs historic or experimental. Maybe I will be
surprised.
regards,
/jim
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
