Hi,
What do 6man people think about moving RFC 2874 (the A6 record)
from Experimental to Historic status?
It's pretty clear that it doesn't have any real value, and
it can still create confusion for newcomers.
IMHO this doesn't need a draft; the IESG could just do it.
Regards
Brian
Hi Brian,
What do 6man people think about moving RFC 2874 (the A6 record)
from Experimental to Historic status?
I really thought that it already was Historic :-) No objection at all!
Thanks,
Sander
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Brian,
I'm with you. I don't use A6 record in any case.
Best Regards,
Tina TSOU
http://tinatsou.weebly.com/contact.html
-Original Message-
From: ipv6-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Brian E
Carpenter
Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2011 3:06 PM
To: 6man
Cc: Tim
It looked like a great idea at the time, but the time has passed, and historic
is clearly appropriate.
-Original Message-
From: ipv6-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Tina
TSOU
Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2011 3:13 PM
To: Brian E Carpenter; 6man
Cc: Tim Chown
I think it is make work and won't change the amount of confusion.
In addition A6 allows compresssion of the domain name in the rdata
so it can't be treated as unknown (i.e. a opaque blob) by nameservers.
If one wants to do something about IPv6 addresses in the DNS add
support for scoped
+1
When we did 6renum current practise analysis, we found A6 record is helpful in
renumbering cases. However, we then found it has many issues, which has been
documented in RFC 3363 and RFC 3364. If A6 stays experimental status, it is
really misleading. We should avoid this confusion by moving
On 2011-08-12 11:47, Mark Andrews wrote:
I think it is make work
That's why I am only suggesting an IESG decision, not a draft
and an RFC.
and won't change the amount of confusion.
In addition A6 allows compresssion of the domain name in the rdata
so it can't be treated as unknown (i.e. a
In message 4e447c7e.30...@gmail.com, Brian E Carpenter writes:
On 2011-08-12 11:47, Mark Andrews wrote:
I think it is make work
That's why I am only suggesting an IESG decision, not a draft
and an RFC.
and won't change the amount of confusion.
In addition A6 allows compresssion of
