this is premature because consensus is still split. but I do think it needs
to be on someones agenda to discuss to see what happens when we are all face
to face and in person. I think this issue will also spill over to a
potential interim meeting.
/jim
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext D. J. Bernstein [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday,March 14,2001 3:10 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: The case against A6 and DNAME
>
>
> I propose retiring A6, DNAME, and ip6.arpa. The procedure for this is
> specified in RFC 2026, section 6.4: we ask the IESG to change
> the status
> of the specifications to Historic. Clients and servers will go on
> happily using AAAA and ip6.int.
>
> See http://cr.yp.to/djbdns/killa6.html if you missed the discussion of
> why A6 and DNAME are a bad idea.
>
> ---Dan
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
