host-identifier with IPv6

[Ted Lemon]

On Mar 3, 2009, at 3:18 AM, Simon Hobson wrote:
> Sorry, but this comes across as "we don't care if the protocol
> doesn't work for some important real world setups - that's your fault
> for having the audacity to work around practical issues".

I think this is really the heart of this discussion.   Ultimately, you  
feel that the wrong decision was made.   So I'm trying to offer  
constructive suggestions for how to deal with things as they are, and  
you're telling me they shouldn't be that way.   This is the wrong time  
for that.   You were here when the IETF was designing this protocol.    
I think I was still supporting the ISC server when I wrote the section  
of the draft you're complaining about.   Maybe I should have tried  
specifically to include you, but you were not intentionally left out.

The IETF is an open organization.   Not only do we welcome the  
participation of network operators, but there are entire working  
groups dedicated to addressing their concerns, and they are as  
important as, if not more important than, the protocol extension  
working groups.   For instance, at the upcoming IETF in San Francisco,  
DNSOP (the DNS operations working group) is meeting, but DNSEXT (the  
DNS protocol working group) is not.   Furthermore, the reason I  
continue to read this mailing list, despite the fact that I no longer  
work for the ISC nor support ISC products, is that I think it's  
important in my role as an IETF protocol/operations wonk.

So now you have the protocol you have.   This protocol is widely  
implemented - it's included in Vista, ISC has an implementation, Cisco  
has several implementations, Nominum has an implementation, I have a  
client I've written.   And I've explained to you how to shoehorn your  
needs into the protocol you have.   But you keep coming back and  
telling me that the spec is wrong.  Worse, you're proposing a change  
that would create a huge interoperability problem.

So I'm asking you to take a deep breath, stop feeling like you were  
left out of this process, and deal with the situation as it is  
today.   I've made some suggestions for how to deal with this that I'm  
pretty sure will work in practice.   Software is available today that  
supports what I've suggested.   I think it will work.   If it won't  
work, fine, come back and let us know.   I'm not sure what we'll do in  
that case, but at least we won't be speculating about something that  
*might* be a problem.

Speaking as an author of a client, I've found this conversation  
instructive, and I will certainly be making code changes to account  
for what's been discussed here.   I don't know if other client  
implementors are paying attention to this discussion (I'm sure the ISC  
guys are!), but hopefully all of this talk hasn't been in vain.   But  
I don't think we're making progress, so I'm going to propose that we  
table it now (although if you want to respond with some incisive  
rejoinders, I won't take it the wrong way).