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
On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 12:06 AM, Brian E Carpenter
brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com wrote:
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
In message 5D36713D8A4E7348A7E10DF7437A4B920122BD2C@SZXEML506-MBS.china.huawei
.com, Sheng Jiang writes:
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,
Hi Brian,
At 18:06 11-08-2011, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
If it's historic, servers shouldn't even contain any A6 records,
surely?
It only means that there is consensus within the IETF to classify the
specification as Historic. The A6 records won't disappear overnight though.
I suggest
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
+1
Message d'origine
De: ipv6-boun...@ietf.org de la part de Jiangsheng
Date: ven. 12-août-11 02:57
À: Brian E Carpenter; 6man
Cc: Tim Chown
Objet : RE: A6 record status
+1
When we did 6renum current practise analysis, we found A6 record is helpful in
renumbering cases
Mark,
On Aug 11, 2011, at 9:11 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
The root servers are getting 100's of A6 q/s (~20:1 :A6
http://k.root-servers.org/statistics/GLOBAL/daily/).
Yeah, so? The vast majority of the queries hitting the root servers are
useless crap. 100's of A6 qps is in the noise.
I agree that the status of the RFC has no immediate or direct
impact on the real world. But I think it's orthogonal to the
*operational* question of how to eliminate the residual A6
records and how to eventually eliminate A6 queries. Mark is
completely correct that this would require a plan - but
Mark - do you have any estimate of the current use of A6 records? I'd like to
get an idea of the scope of the impact of moving A6 records to Historic.
- Ralph
On Aug 12, 2011, at 12:56 AM, Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org wrote:
In message 4e447c7e.30...@gmail.com, Brian E Carpenter writes:
Brian,
On Aug 12, 2011, at 10:53 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
But I think it's orthogonal to the
*operational* question of how to eliminate the residual A6
records and how to eventually eliminate A6 queries.
If you can figure this out, perhaps the lesson can be applied to iqueries and
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
Chown
Subject: A6 record status
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
Subject: RE: A6 record status
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
.
-Original Message-
From: ipv6-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Tina T
SOU
Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2011 3:13 PM
To: Brian E Carpenter; 6man
Cc: Tim Chown
Subject: RE: A6 record status
Brian,
I'm with you. I don't use A6 record in any case.
Best Regards,
Tina
it to Historic.
Sheng
-Original Message-
From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, August 12, 2011 6:06 AM
To: 6man
Cc: Jiangsheng; Tim Chown
Subject: A6 record status
Hi,
What do 6man people think about moving RFC 2874 (the A6 record)
from
...@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Tina
T
SOU
Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2011 3:13 PM
To: Brian E Carpenter; 6man
Cc: Tim Chown
Subject: RE: A6 record status
Brian,
I'm with you. I don't use A6 record in any case.
Best Regards,
Tina TSOU
http://tinatsou.weebly.com
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
18 matches
Mail list logo
