the odd thing is, since document is cobbled together as both a floor wax and a dessert topping it can do neither well, certainly NOT as a BCP. It might be realistic of the IETF to talk about the protocol requirements for running a DNS server (the roots are not special in this regard). It beggars the imagination to think the IETF can or should dictate operational considerations to any organization or organizations that use its protocols. First blush, the pace of operational requirement changes can’t easily mesh with the pace of IETF document standardization.. Not even with a SyncroMesh(tm) Transmission. Perhaps it might be better to move RFC 2870 to historic and admit the IETF does;t dictate operational requirements, instead choosing to focus on it core competencies. /bill On 28May2014Wednesday, at 10:09, Russ Housley <housley@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Paul: > >>>> | MUST support IPv4[RFC0791] and IPv6[RFC2460] transport of DNS >>>> | queries and responses. >>>> >>>> This needs an addition: "Some servers in the root name service might not support IPv4, and some might not support IPv6." Without that, some people might think that each server must respond on both layer 3 technologies, but they do not. >>> >>> I would like to see each and every root server support both IPv4 and IPv6. >> >> So would I. But is that a *requirement*, particularly given that the root service seems to run just fine today without it? >> >> I propose that the addition is still needed, despite what you and I would like to see. > > If a root server does not support both IPv4 and IPv6 then it does not comply with the proposed BCP. > > Russ >