Subject: RE: AAAA/A6 thing

From: "Christian Huitema" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 7 May 2001 10:09:36 -0700

For the sake of documentation, here is the history of this matter. It
started out from Mike O'Dell's 8+8 proposal, resulted in various
proposals to add a "site name" record in the DNS (see minutes of April
97 IETF
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/97apr/97apr-final/xrtftr47.htm#E25E63).
The "two part record" proposal was presented in December 1997 (minutes
of the Dec 1997 IETF: http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/97dec/index.html;
discussion in both ipngwg and dnsind). This was again discussed at the
next IETF in April 1997. The idea at the time was to maintain binary
compatibility between the existing AAAA and the new format -- the AAAA
record would have grown an optional tail describing the prefix
information. The binary label were discussed at the same time in the
DNSIND WG. The discussion continued throughout 1998; in August, it was
decided to merge two drafts, one describing the "new AAAA" and one
describing the reverse look-up; the DNAME proposal was discussed at the
time in the DNSIND WG
(http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/98aug/index.html). In the discussions
that ensued, at the request of DNS implementers, it was decided to drop
the AAAA compatibility and to go for a new record type. The document
went through WG last call, and was submitted to the IESG in October
1998. In short, this was not a flip decision -- the process took a year
and a half, spanning 5 IETF meetings.

-- Christian Huitema

to unsubscribe send a message to [email-masked] with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.