On 7/2/24 10:31, Joel Halpern wrote:
Saying that IPv6 is desired for all services the IETF uses makes sense. Saying it is mandatory seems problematic. I remember, for example, a discussion of whether we would use github because at the time (I do not know the current status) it did not support IPv6. The community decided the value was worth the absence of IPv6. So I do not think the community agrees that IPv6 support is mandatory.
What I meant was that IPv6 should be mandatory for email because now or in the future there might be some participant who can only participate in email discussions via IPv6. That, and IETF has been promoting IPv6 for decades now as the transition plan away from IPv4 address shortages.
I do think that a determination of whether IPv6 is mandatory can be made on a service-by-service basis, as long as it's realized that this is inherently a temporary decision that must be revisited from time to time, and in time to adapt to conditions that may change quickly.
Keith
