Hello BMWG and DNSOP Members, We apologize for crossposting, but we are looking for specialized feedback regarding DNS operations. In BMWG, we have been working on a draft aimed at Benchmarking IPv6 transition technologies (https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bmwg-ipv6-tran-tech-benchmarking-01 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bmwg-ipv6-tran-tech-benchmarking-01>). The draft includes a benchmark called DNS resolution performance. Currently, it only targets DNS64 as the complement of NAT64. During the IETF95 presentation in BMWG, we asked if DNS46 is worth the effort of being included in the scope. We (the authors) believe it has a very narrow use case and it is not worth the effort. Part of our reasoning is the lack of an RFC until now, although individual efforts exist since 2009 (Please see: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-xli-behave-dns46-for-stateless-00 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-xli-behave-dns46-for-stateless-00>). In the IETF95 BMWG meeting, there was no opinion for including or not including DNS46 in the scope of the draft, and Al Morton (as chair) suggested relaying the question on the BMWG and DNSOP mailing lists. So, here it goes: Is there anyone in BMWG or DNSOP who thinks DNS46 should be included in a future version of https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bmwg-ipv6-tran-tech-benchmarking-01 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bmwg-ipv6-tran-tech-benchmarking-01> ?
Thank you, Marius Georgescu Gábor Lencse
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
