Hi On 29/05/2014 17:41, manning bill wrote: > apparently there is not “enough consensus”, since several roots don’t have published v6 addresses. > there -might- be rough consensus in a narrow slice of the technical community that has an axe to grind. > end of the day, the IETF has no say on how people operate their networks/services. I meant consensus here, not in the root server operator community. I believe that there is a limit on the argument of operational independence. If you agree to provide a service the whole Internet depends on, well, it's reasonable that you need to comply with certain requirements. If an operator can't / won't comply with the requirements set by the IETF, they can ask to be relieved of their duty. > > if you think it should, i’d like to see a resolution of the DMARC deployment that requires all SMTP > servers to require, per IETF mandate to support DMARC. > > Engineering is not Operations. This is not the IOTF. DMARC/mailing lists are hardly critical infrastructure. This is not even remotely comparable to the root server issue in terms of impact. > > /bill ~Carlos > Neca eos omnes. Deus suos agnoscet. > > On 29May2014Thursday, at 13:18, Carlos M. Martinez <carlosm3011@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> I think there is enough consensus saying that root server operators MUST >> support IPv6. I think it's hard to argue that the Internet needs this to >> move to IPv6, as otherwise we'll be saying that it'll be ok for future >> networks to not be able to access some root servers, or putting the >> burden of supporting all IPv6 on a subset of root servers. >> >> If you add that not all root server operators offer anycast copies, or >> do it in a limited way, well, we could be putting the IPv6 internet in a >> fragile position. >> >> IMO, setting this requirement is well within the core competencies of >> the IETF. >> >> Then comes the question what to do (if anything) with those root server >> operators who chose to ignore this MUST. >> >> IMO, This is probably outside the IETF's sphere, and it should be >> possible to even say so in the proposed document. >> >> cheers! >> >> ~Carlos >> >> On 29/05/2014 05:24, Jari Arkko wrote: >>> >>>> I would like every A-M.root-servers.net have an A and AAAA record. >>>> >>>> I don't care how the root-server operators decide to partition to workload >>>> among hardware. >>> >>> Yes, that is my view as well. >>> >>>> Over time we will need more v6 responders and fewer v4 >>>> responders. >>>> I don't think that there is, or should be, any requirement that v4 and v6 be >>>> answered by the same system, and given anycast, they might even be in >>>> different locations. >>>> >>>> I think that the current text captures this just fine: >>> >>> Agreed. >>> >>> Jari >>> >> >