On Wed, 5 Mar 2003, Thomas Narten wrote: > Bob & Margaret have sent me a revised IPv6 charter that I have > forwarded to the IESG/IAB for consideration. It is largely consistent > with the charter that the WG has already seen and supported with one > exception. "DNS discovery" is not included in the charter.
FWIW, I support this approach. A BOF would likely be the best approach if we want to explore and find the best solution(s). If we want to push just one/two solutions, dnsop/dnsext (where appropriate) or even v6ops (this is a deployment problem, you could argue ;-) -- but there's already a bit much on that plate) would do. Btw, personally, I have a gut feeling that a neighbor discovery option would probably be a simple approach, though it isn't without its own problems (like monitoring the lifetime of the DNS resolver in the advertisements). > I asked that this item be removed from the charter for several > reasons: > > - If I were to take it to the IESG/IAB (who get to review all WG > charters), I would expect to get strong pushback on including the > DNS discovery work in the IPv6 WG. Reasons would include: > > - this is not IPv6-specific work, it should be done in a broader > IETF context, e.g., where the DNS operational expertise resides > such as in DNSOP. > > - why not just use DHC? I know that many are opposed to including > DHC as part of the solution, but that view is not universally > shared, understood, or agreed too. Especially outside of the IPv6 > community. > > - what about the technical concerns that have been raised regarding > the approach in the current draft? (See Erik Nordmark's > presentation at the Yokohama meeting, for example.) IMO, there has > been a lack of rigorous consideration of the issues that have been > raised. > > Although I have heard the arguments coming from proponents of the > DNS discovery work, I have not been strongly convinced. Moreover, I > also have heard the arguments against the approach in the current > document from others, and find their arguments to have merit as > well. That puts me in the awkward position of arguing for a position > within the IESG that the WG supports, but that I have concerns with > and where I don't have strong answers for addressing those > concerns. The issues here are not black-and-white. I see that there > are multiple sides to the argument, but this group seems to have > difficulty in having a technical discussion about those issues. It > seems like the WG is to a large extent tired of this issue and just > wants to have an RFC. > > - the dns discovery effort has dragged on for way too long (more than > 2 years), and due in part part to the history, I have doubts about > this WG being able to have a productive discussion on the topic > anymore. Being very aware of ongoing discussions and concerns being > discussed on, e.g., the problem-statement list, it is time to make > some decisions and move on. One of those decision may just be that > the idea of a quick-and-simple DNS discovery has missed its window > of opportunity, and we just need to move on. > > - the current approach of interest assumes the use of SL > addresses. Given the issues swirling around SL and to what degree > the WG wants to encourage or limit their usage, I find it hard to > believe that the current ID is a good way to go forward. It would > seem odd to recommend this approach while simultaneously still > having discussions about how much to discourage the usage of > site-local addressing. > > - it is not clear to me there is really consensus for the current > document at this point in time, whatever past concensus there might > have been. Moreover, it's not clear how much support the selected > approach has outside of the IPv6 community. This gets back to an > earlier point about doing the work in consultation with the right > experts. > > Where to go from here? If there is truly interest in continuing this > work, it might make sense to engage the DNSOP WG to see what kind of > interest there is there _for the problem statement_ before even > discussing any particular approach. It might also make sense to host a > BOF on either the narrow topic of DNS discovery or the broader topic > of service discovery. Steve Deering posted a long note a while back on > "serverless discovery" that I think was quite interesting, but much > work needs to be done to flesh that out, assuming there is interest in > doing so. Finally, there is always DHC (the IESG approved DHCPv6 as a > PS at the end of 2002), so the IETF _does_ have a recommended approach > -- it's just one that some people don't like. > > Thomas > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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] > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > -- Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds." Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
