Re: IESG evaluation of draft-ietf-v6ops-mech-v2-02.txt (fwd)

[Alain Durand <Alain.Durand@Sun.COM>]

On Jul 17, 2004, at 6:59 AM, Margaret Wasserman wrote:

> > My opinion is that we should delete section 2.2 DNS all together, as 
> > out of scope.
>
> I am concerned about this option, because it seems to duck the 
> problem...  Do you really think it would be okay to publish a 
> specification for dual-stack nodes that is silent on the subject of 
> address selection?  Without even including a reference to a separate 
> specification that covers this topic?

Look at the table of content of the draft:

  2.  Dual IP Layer Operation..................................    5
         2.1.  Address Configuration...............................    5
         2.2.  DNS.................................................    5
  3.  Configured Tunneling Mechanisms..........................    7
         3.1.  Encapsulation.......................................    8
         3.2.  Tunnel MTU and Fragmentation........................    9
            3.2.1.  Static Tunnel MTU..............................    9
            3.2.2.  Dynamic Tunnel MTU.............................   10
         3.3.  Hop Limit...........................................   11
         3.4.  Handling ICMPv4 errors..............................   12
         3.5.  IPv4 Header Construction............................   14
         3.6.  Decapsulation.......................................   15
         3.7.  Link-Local Addresses................................   18
         3.8.  Neighbor Discovery over Tunnels.....................   19
 4.  Threat Related to Source Address Spoofing................   20
 5.  Security Considerations..................................   21
 6.  Acknowledgments...............

The essence of this draft is really about dual stack and tunneling IPv6 
over IPv4
as _the_ basic transition mechanisms. There is much more than DNS in the
operation of a dual stack node, however the draft only mention DNS,
and, as you mention, is not complete as it does not actually provide
a satisfactory answer to the overall problem.

This is the reason why I think we might as well declare the DNS issues 
out of scope.

	- Alain.