Patrik, On May 29, 2014, at 2:41 AM, Patrik Fältström <paf@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Just for clarity, the root server operators are under no obligation to do anything. > But that is not the problem of the IETF. True, which is sort of my point. > If the IETF come to conclusion that root server services "must" support IPv4 and IPv6, so be it. It should be in the RFC. BCP177 would appear to cover the IETF's interest in ensuring both IPv4 and IPv6 is supported. > Policing will not happen without a spec that services can be compared against. My impression is that the IETF hasn't been particularly effective in coming up with operational service specifications. > And lack of policing (which seems to be what you talk about) is I think a separate issue. That's not really what I'm talking about. What I am saying is that it I don't really see the point in the IETF attempted to demand stuff outside of its control. In most standardization/protocol definition contexts, the IETF specifying "MUST" or "MUST NOT" usually makes sense since folks generally have a choice in obtaining equipment/software/service that is implementing those standards. This is NOT the case with the root servers. By and large, the Internet community gets what the root server operators deem at their sole discretion (perhaps informed by outside-the-IETF contractual or other obligations) within their interests to provide, nothing more and nothing less. In April 2012, the IETF, via BCP177, already stated "IPv6 is required" yet B, E, and G still do not support IPv6 (yes, I'm sure there are reasons, that's not the point). RFC 2010 was published in 1996 and was mostly ignored by the root server operators. RFC 2870 was published in 2000 and was mostly ignored by the root server operators. What has changed that makes you believe a new RFC is going to have a different impact? Regards, -drc
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail