Thomas,
I support this change.
Regarding what to do with the DNS server discovery work, I think a BOF would be
an appropriate approach. Steve Deering's serverless discovery is an interesting
approach, and I think it deserves some consideration, but I've heard plausible
reasons why DNS server discovery might be an exception to the general case of
service discovery so one topic of such a BOF would be sorting that out.
jak
----- Original Message -----
From: "Thomas Narten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2003 7:22 AM
Subject: Revised IPv6 charter and DNS discovery
> note: AD hat on.
>
> 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.
>
> 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]
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
