Hi all,
After discussing with some DNS folk, the suggested text for section 5.2 is as
follows:
5.2 DNS
All nodes, that need to resolve names, SHOULD implement stub-resolver
[RFC1034 section 5.3.1] functionality with support for:
- type Resource Records
Speaking as an outsider on this particular topic...
Is there any reason why these appeals should be single-threaded?
As much fun as it might be to continue to rotate this topic on a spit,
we've been discussing whether we actually made this decision or not
for six months. Continuing to discuss it
Hi Fred,
So in the general case I don't see a problem with deprecating
things under the right circumstances, but I do have a problem with
removing them outright. Deprecation doesn't prevent people from using
them, but outright removal can be dangerous. And in this case, the
assertion
note that this survey was done *after* the decision was announced
as a done deal - I, for one, took that into account when I responded
From: Bob Hinden Brian Haberman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], Brian Haberman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2003
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Eugene M. Kim wrote:
snip
|
| With all due respect, it seems that it would be beneficial for both
| camps (for and against SL) to hear, even now, the real concerns directly
| from the operation people and to let them participate in the decision
|
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the IP Version 6 Working Group Working Group of the IETF.
Title : IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture
Author(s) : R. Hinden, S. Deering
Filename
No offense, folks, but if you really must have yet another round of
this interminable discussion, could you please trim the cc: list?
Four copies of each message is a bit much. Thanks.
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[Apologies for cross-posting. Please trim the CC: on replies.]
Folks,
I sent an official BOF request for a Host Identity Protocol BOF
a few moments ago. Based on the discussions with the INT area
ADs, it looks fairly probable that a BOF will be scheduled.
The latest version of the proposed BOF
Thus spake Leif Johansson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Been there. Done that. Didn't work. This vast Moral Majority of the
Site-Locals either don't exist or live entierly behind NATs or other
boxes which prevent them from receiving the call to arms to participate
in the debate. ;-)
Or we all just got
For the record, I can't support deprecating site locals until we have
something else approved to replace them
replace them for what purpose? different people wanted site locals for
different purposes. some of those purposes are dubious. others inherently
cause harm.
we're not going to
At 12:55 PM 10/10/2003, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
All in all, however, I think outright removal, although short-term more
painful, will be less troublesome than many years of debugging problems
caused by 1918-style leakage of addresses for a deprecated feature.
That may be so. It is a third
Hi Scott,
Speaking only for myself, I would like to address a couple of the
points that you have made.
It is my opinion that there is a difference between a working group
deciding to adopt a technology and a working group deciding
to delete a technology from an existing IETF
At 02:30 PM 10/10/2003, Leif Johansson wrote:
With all due respect, it seems that it would be beneficial for both camps
(for and against SL) to hear, even now, the real concerns directly from
the operation people and to let them participate in the decision
themselves. ... snip
Been there. Done
So the basic concept is (in my opinion) broken and needs to be
euthanized.
This is based on the assumption that leaking RFC 1918 routing
information or packets with RFC 1918 source or destination addresses is
actually harmful in and of itself.
no, it's based on (among other things)
At 03:03 PM 10/10/2003, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Fred, I hope that this resolves your technical concern about
this particular case, and I apologize for not making this
distinction clear in my response to Scott.
yes, it does.
In this case, I was responding to an increase in the complexity of the
15 matches
Mail list logo
