Hiya, This topic now has multiple threads, so I'm just picking the most subject form the most recent mail to respond on all of this. - It seems whomever made the call that it was ok to pick an IPv4-only vendor (and hence drop IPv6) did not first ask the community. That's a so-far unrecognised error. (And to be clear: the error is in not realising that one really has to ask that particular question first.) - Assertions that mail is hard are easy and sometimes used to dismiss valid concerns with "how things are." I think there are many examples of medium-sized mall service providers doing things well that get ignored all the time. I believe the thing that is most relevantly hard is being as cost-effective as the major providers, who often don't really provide a very good service when it comes to the technicalities. - I don't recall hearing there were issues with deliverability of IETF email that were down to use of IPv6. So it seems the high-order-bit was already fine when it comes to the facet under discussion. - I again assert that there is no need for the IETF to use a "major" mail service provider. That'd mean no argument that starts with "major providers don't do..." would be sufficient (i.e. more is needed than only such an argument). All in all, I think the LLC and IESG ought address this topic. I also continue to conclude there's a bad smell to this - not copping on that dropping IPv6 is something that needs to be communicated well and justified etc. is surprisingly bad form from very well-intentioned and knowledgeable folk. Cheers, S.
Attachment:
OpenPGP_0xE4D8E9F997A833DD.asc
Description: OpenPGP public key
Attachment:
OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
