Subject: IETF email and IPv6 and related issues Date: Tue, Jul 02, 2024 at 12:24:51PM +0100 Quoting Jay Daley (exec-director@xxxxxxxx):
> (Sorry for this response taking so long - I was way last week)
>
> From reading the various threads, there are four substantive points
> for me to address:
>
> 1. Communications
<snip>
> 2. Consulting on specific changes
<snip>
> 3. IPv6 for mail
> As others have explained, we have chosen to switch, at this stage,
> to a large commercial mail sender with extensive reputation management
> rather than continue to send directly and as a consequence that will
> be IPv4 only. I don’t plan to reiterate the multiple trade-offs
> considered in that decision, but I do want to stress that this was
> not a simple decision. I say "at this stage" because there are still
> discussions about whether or not this is the best long term strategy
> for mail delivery.
My experience with the IETF community is that it is much more research
than operations focussed, and this means that I think the deliberations
made probably make more sense than many on the list think -- if at
no other place then definitely at the coal face. And that counts for
something. Even if they do not make sense from afar. There is a
split view here, and it needs to be acknowledged.
My personal belief is that it probably could have been done dual-stack,
but I fully respect the decisions made by people doing work --
considerably more than I do the opinions of those who watch and know
how it should be done... (including myself)
( Side discussion: There is another underlying problem that's probably
lead to the decision, and I think this is where the research community
could contribute: Email is becoming conduits between walled gardens.
Stopping this is -- I feel -- a very important thing for the Internet,
and thus, the IETF. )
> At a principled level, I agree that if the community says "we must have
> IPv6 for mail" then the LLC needs to deliver that, but at a practical
> level, given the cost and effort required, I would want that conveyed in
> a more formal way than a discussion on this list and us given a year plus
> to deliver it. However, and this is major however, piecemeal decisions
> like that are only going to make things much harder and it would be much
> better to have a broader decision about IPv6 in IETF services (more on
> that below).
I think the operations people need peace and quiet, and long term
guidance. Not micro management.
> For now at least then, we are going to continue with the plan to move
> to Amazon SES for mail sending. Once that is bedded down, that will
> be reviewed, but that will be several months away and the outcome may
> be to stick with it, unless there has been a community decision that
> changes that.
My hope is that there's been some thought as to how this can be changed
down the line. I fully agree with those who have stated that such decisions
need to be made changeable.
> 4. IPv6 for all services (or not)
> If the community wants to develop guidance on the use of IPv6 for IETF
> services then that would be helpful. More generally, it would be so much
> better all round, if the implicit expectations that people have about
> IETF services, were properly surfaced, discussed, agreed and recorded.
> If that were done, then we would be very happy to include those in any
> RFP or service assessment.
My strongly held opinion is that _any_ RFP for services made by the IETF
should mention RFC 6540. Dogfood and all that. I also think that the
carrot is better than the stick. Making dual-stack service a strong SHOULD
and v4-only an expensive MAY will not close any doors to selecting the
best provider, and is, I feel, the best compromise. In the spirit of
many previous exchanges, I'm sending text:
Service FOO SHOULD be offered over both IPv6 and IPv4 in accordance
with RFC 6540, but MAY be offered over IPv4 only. When evaluating
proposals for service FOO, IETF will, as part of the qualifying
process, assign offers made an evaluation price. This price will be
85% of the offered i price for dual-stack service. Offers for IPv4-
only service will be assigned an evaluation price of 115% of the
offered price.
Further, I will state that I have implemented this, and that it works.
/Måns, scarred by EU procurement law.
--
Måns Nilsson primary/secondary/besserwisser/machina
MN-1334-RIPE SA0XLR +46 705 989668
JAPAN is a WONDERFUL planet -- I wonder if we'll ever reach their level
of COMPARATIVE SHOPPING ...
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
