Jason, It seems to me that "move the needle" may be the wrong criterion. As several of us have commented in different ways, the most important thing is that the IETF be seen as seriously trying to get support for IPv6 in its work and operations. In that regard, tuning RFPs as various people have suggested is good. Trying to get M3AAWG on board would be good too. If we can figure out other ways to try to push people toward supporting IPv6 for our tools and operations, that would be good too. That part of this issue has just about zero to do with our expectations of success. It is much closer to "can't hurt to try and there are some advantages to doing so". The only argument I can see against going down that path would be if IPv6 were so seriously broken as a means of supporting a particular application that we would risk suffering public embarrassment from the responses. As others have pointed out, including at the running code level, there is little risk of that. To make that issue a bit more concrete, suppose you (in your LLC Board capacity), Jay, Roman, or Tommy found yourselves in a public, non-IETF forum and were asked what it means for IPv6 that the IETF is not supporting it for its own email. Pick between the following answers in terms of what you would rather say and what you would rather have the audience hear: (1) "The IETF has made a good faith effort to get IPv6 support for those tools and operations, including writing a strong preference clause into RFPs and intervening with multiple organizations. However, the LLC has determined that, for operational reasons including what is practically available in the marketplace, insisting on it would impede the IETF's ability to do its work." (2) "None of the vendors whom we considered plausible sources of the relevant support services provide IPv6 so we decided we didn't care." Now perhaps the second is a little more extreme than necessary (although some comments have, IMO, come close). And I am confident that you, Jay, and legal counsel if necessary could do better with the first. But I hope the point is clear. john --On Friday, July 5, 2024 13:20 +0000 "Livingood, Jason" <jason_livingood=40comcast.com@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I am not sure they could move the needle. Isn't it really just > convincing 1 or 2 major mail providers (or really just Gmail)? > On 7/5/24, 03:35, "Eliot Lear" <lear@xxxxxxx <mailto:lear@xxxxxxx>> > wrote: >> Can I suggest one way forward would be for the IETF to liaise a >> nastygram to M3AAWG and ask for their help in getting their members >> to properly support IPv6?
