Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ipv6-node-requirements-08.txt

[Mark_Andrews at isc.org]

   "Those nodes are NOT RECOMMENDED to support the experimental A6 and
   DNAME Resource Records [RFC-3363]."

	I object to recommending that DNAME's not be supported.  RFC
	3363 does NOT say that.  It says that they shouldn't be use
	in the reverse tree for RENUMBERING purposes.  Even then the
	logic to get to that decision is DUBIOUS at best.

	If RFC 3363 was ever to be revised I would be pushing for the
	entire section on DNAME to be removed.  We really should not
	be saying were in the DNS tree DNAME can be used.

	RFC 3363 most definitly does not recommend that DNAMES be not
	supported.

	I really suspect that we will want to use DNAME for renumbering
	even without A6 and bit-string labels.  Trying to get
	multiple levels of delegation updated quickly is a pain.
	Just look at the problems we are having going from IP6.INT
	to IP6.ARPA.  Do we want this pain level with every renumber
	event.

	Mark
--
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: Mark.Andrews@isc.org

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------