Subject: Re: DNS transport guidelines [Re: [dnsop] WGLC for draft-ietf-dnsop-ipv6-dns-issues-06.txt]

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 May 2004 07:36:52 +0300 (EEST)

On Tue, 4 May 2004, Rob Austein wrote:
>   So, while I understand where you're coming from, and can live with
>   the change you're proposing if that's the consensus, I think it'd be
>   better to leave the text alone.

FWIW, I have (personally) the exactly same feeling: I'd rather not 
change anything as that would make the text less useful _for now_.

If IPv6 wins over the world, we need to revise a few documents in any 
case :)

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings

.
dnsop resources:_____________________________________________________
web user interface: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/dnsop.html
mhonarc archive: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/dnsop/index.html

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 May 2004 08:47:41 +0300 (EEST)

Hi,

There haven't been followups after this (except my personal "I agree" 
note).

First, I think the proposals like given should be reflected in the
transport guidelines document if we want them to be incorporated here;  
this document just includes a summary of the requirements of transport
guidelines.

Second, there are reasons (given by Rob) why making the statements
more generic would be less useful to the users, so if we changed the
text, we should be rather careful about it.

So (editor hat on), unless I hear otherwise, I'm not changing the
text at this point.

On Tue, 4 May 2004, Rob Austein wrote:
> <hat co-chair=off just-another-bozo=on>
> 
>   Ed,
> 
>   First off, I probably need to recuse as WG co-chair on this one,
>   since the transport guidelines doc is partly based on a back of a
>   (virtual) envelope proposal I made several years ago.  Anyway....
> 
>   In principle, I agree with you that what the doc ought to say is
>   "every zone should be available via every version of IP", full stop.
> 
>   The difficulty is that the situation is not as symmetrical as it
>   might seem.  IPv4 is already deployed, and we can't do much about
>   all the zones for which all the authoritative name servers are
>   IPv4-only.  We can say that it'd be nice for the world to fix this,
>   but IPv6 does not yet have enough traction for this to be much more
>   than wishful thinking, and I've never much cared for inventing rules
>   that we know aren't going to be enforced.  We can, however, expect
>   that IPv6 deployment will take interoperability with IPv4 into
>   account, thus it's reasonable for us to say how to do that.
> 
>   Some day, a decade or so from now, when everything that matters is
>   dual stack and keeping IPv4 running costs more than it's worth, we
>   can write a new RFC that says that IPv4 support isn't required
>   anymore.  But trying to write a document now for that far future day
>   just dilutes the message that today's document is to trying to send.
> 
> </hat>

.