[6bone] Re: DNS support for IPv6

[Xavier Roche]

>> You want to mention them, but mention that they've been shelved,
>> cite the RFC that explains why :)
>>Which one would that be?  I can't find any particular RFC, or actual

This one:

http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2474.txt?number=2474

And its update: (August 2002)
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3364.txt?number=3364

See "Less Compelling Arguments in Favor of AAAA" and "Potential Problems with A6" sections.

"
   Recommendations based on these questions:

   (1) If the IPv6 working groups seriously intend to specify and deploy
       rapid renumbering or GSE-like routing, we should transition to
       using the A6 RR in the main tree and to using DNAME RRs as
       necessary in the reverse tree.

   (2) Otherwise, we should keep the simpler AAAA solution in the main
       tree and should not use DNAME RRs in the reverse tree.

   (3) In either case, the reverse tree should use the textual
       representation described in [RFC1886] rather than the bit label
       representation described in [RFC2874].

   (4) If we do go to using A6 RRs in the main tree and to using DNAME
       RRs in the reverse tree, we should write applicability statements
       and implementation guidelines designed to discourage excessively
       complex uses of these features; in general, any network that can
       be described adequately using A6 0 RRs and without using DNAME
       RRs should be described that way, and the enhanced features
       should be used only when absolutely necessary, at least until we
       have much more experience with them and have a better
       understanding of their failure modes.
"