I'm cc'ing this to IPNG. It's up to IPNG to deprecate A6. Furthermore,
standardization activities should not be carried out on namedroppers,
for reasons discussed in http://cr.yp.to/djbdns/namedroppers.html.
Robert Elz writes:
> undisputed extra flexibility
We all agree that A6 is an extension to the DNS protocol. This does not
mean that it adds flexibility to DNS. Server-side indirection provides
the same functions with no protocol changes.
Paul Vixie writes:
> Hint to whoever is in charge: the time to debate A6's merits at this level
> was: before it got put on the standards track,
That would have been a good time, but now is a good time too.
There is no guarantee that a protocol put on the standards track will
move along that track, or that it will stay on the track. In fact, under
IETF rules, protocols that want to advance are subject to more scrutiny,
not less.
The proponents of A6-everywhere think that they have the right to
deprecate AAAA. So why don't the proponents of AAAA-everywhere have the
right to deprecate A6?
> before a lot of code got written, and before a lot of operational
> deployment was put into various long and expensive pipelines.
So, because you and Microsoft have wasted time on a bad extension, every
other DNS implementor is required to waste time too? Including all
future DNS implementors?
---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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
