Thank you for this. I just commented to help the reading. I think you fully addressed that. Except on one point, but I am not competent to seriously addres your question (see below)/
At 14:23 25/03/04, Pekka Savola wrote:
(btw, I clarified the applicability of this document by adding in the introduction:)
<t>The purpose of this document is to give information about important issues and considerations related to DNS operations with IPv6; it is not meant to be a normative specification or standard for IPv6 DNS.</t>
Thak you.
I was not sure whether you were objecting to the contents of this section or not so I'm assuming you could be.. so..
I think all the main arguments have been fairly portrayed (in more detail in other documents). If you believe otherwise, please raise a specific objection.
I do not object the content. As said above. But as a reader I wish to understand what is said to me one shot.
Please specify the exact paragraphs and issues where you're raising a point, possibly giving some context, and let's see if we can flesh these out. It's difficult if we don't understand each others' comments :-)
I just commented the reading as a reader. I think you already met most of my outsiders remarks. BTW Thank you.
OK; I tried to fuel the thinking a bit:
<t>A problem with defining the clean-up process is that it is difficult to ensure that a specific IP address and the corresponding record are no longer being used. Considering the huge address space, and the unlikelyhood of collision within 64 bits of the interface identifiers, a process which would remove the record after no traffic has been seen from a node in a period of time (e.g., a year) might be one possible approach.</t>
Great: I mean in term of explaining - however I am not sure it should not call for a TTO (Time to Obsolecence) to be specified?
> The real problem for an non specialist is to know about _all_ > what is discussed in an IETF environment where there is no > state of the art/debate summary.
I've tried to keep these debates out of this document (in the interests of not delaying it, and giving possibility to fully discuss it in other documents), just summarizing the situation if applicable.
Yes. What I meant was to list the points under debate. Not to discuss them.
When concerned, one should check the references pointed at in the paragraphs for more information.
Of course, in some cases (e.g., this janitorial process) there has not been much formal work on that. It's unfortunate, but hopefully some new documents, in the future could be kick-started in the future.
This is what I suggested. To explain what is concerned by the janitorial aspects, to push for new documents. I suspect that these janitorial/ancillary issues may be the real operational issues?
Thank you for your understanding. jfc
. dnsop resources:_____________________________________________________ web user interface: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/dnsop.html mhonarc archive: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/dnsop/index.html
