Re: Updated "Revised ULA DNS text"

2005-03-18 Thread Pekka Savola
On Fri, 18 Mar 2005, Thomas Narten wrote: On Thu, 10 Mar 2005, Mark Smith wrote: Maybe a "SHOULD NOT" rather than "are not recommended to" in the first sentence ? "not recommended" reads to me that, well, it isn't recommended, [...] "At the present time and PTR records for locally assigned loc

Re: Updated "Revised ULA DNS text"

2005-03-18 Thread Thomas Narten
Note: not being an AD anymore, I might even find time to read mailing lists again and (gasp!) comment on occasion!!! :-) Pekka Savola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Thu, 10 Mar 2005, Mark Smith wrote: > > Maybe a "SHOULD NOT" rather than "are not recommended to" in the first > > sentence ? "not

Re: Updated "Revised ULA DNS text"

2005-03-10 Thread Stephen Sprunk
Thus spake "Bob Hinden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > I have a small preference for "not recommended" instead of a lower case > "should not" (lowercase for the reasons Pekka stated) because I think "not > recommended" is stronger. But it's not a big issue either way and I am > happy to make the change if

Re: Updated "Revised ULA DNS text"

2005-03-10 Thread Bob Hinden
Mark, Maybe a "SHOULD NOT" rather than "are not recommended to" in the first sentence ? "not recommended" reads to me that, well, it isn't recommended, however, if you do, the consequences aren't all that great. While that may actually be the case in this scenario, I'd think people would be lookin

Re: Updated "Revised ULA DNS text"

2005-03-09 Thread Mark Smith
On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 07:27:59 +0200 (EET) Pekka Savola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, 10 Mar 2005, Mark Smith wrote: > > Maybe a "SHOULD NOT" rather than "are not recommended to" in the first > > sentence ? "not recommended" reads to me that, well, it isn't > > recommended, > [...] > > "At th

Re: Updated "Revised ULA DNS text"

2005-03-09 Thread Pekka Savola
On Thu, 10 Mar 2005, Mark Smith wrote: Maybe a "SHOULD NOT" rather than "are not recommended to" in the first sentence ? "not recommended" reads to me that, well, it isn't recommended, [...] "At the present time and PTR records for locally assigned local IPv6 addresses SHOULD NOT be installed

Re: Updated "Revised ULA DNS text"

2005-03-09 Thread Mark Smith
Hi Bernie, On Wed, 9 Mar 2005 23:39:48 -0500 "Bernie Volz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Isn't the reason more basic ... As these are not globally administered, > there are no plans to build out the zones to contain the reverse delegations > (since there's no one to officially designate the zones

RE: Updated "Revised ULA DNS text"

2005-03-09 Thread Bernie Volz
] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Mark Smith > Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2005 10:02 PM > To: Bob Hinden > Cc: ipv6@ietf.org > Subject: Re: Updated "Revised ULA DNS text" > > Hi Bob, > > On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 15:08:55 -0800 > Bob Hinden <[EMAIL PROTECTE

Re: Updated "Revised ULA DNS text"

2005-03-09 Thread Mark Smith
Hi Bob, On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 15:08:55 -0800 Bob Hinden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Based on the comments on the mailing list and yesterday's discussion at the > IPv6 session in Minneapolis an updated version of the ULA DNS text is > included below. > > Please review and respond if it looks OK

Updated "Revised ULA DNS text"

2005-03-09 Thread Bob Hinden
Based on the comments on the mailing list and yesterday's discussion at the IPv6 session in Minneapolis an updated version of the ULA DNS text is included below. Please review and respond if it looks OK (or not). The current plan is to have the text replace the content of Section 4.4 "DNS Issu