if the document stayed in the protocol space (e.g. this v4/v6 thread), I’d be with you 75% of the way. But the root servers are not special in this regard. If BCP177 is correct, then you want this document to refer to -ALL- DNS servers (particularly the authoritative and caching servers) … then I’m behind this 100%. But a small set of the IETF wanting to dictate operational / business models to folks is a bridge too far. /bill Neca eos omnes. Deus suos agnoscet. On 30May2014Friday, at 11:30, Russ Housley <housley@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> BCP177 would appear to be a significantly better answer here. > > Speaking for myself. That is, no hats. > > BCP 177 is a very good thing. It represents the IETF consensus that IPv6 is the future of the Internet. > > I think that draft-iab-2870bis-01.txt should become a BCP as well. I think it is important for the IETF to say that each of the root servers -- all 13 of them -- need to support IPv4 and IPv6. This could be done with dual-stack or it an be done with different hardware. The client can't tell, so we should not impose a specific configuration. By including this requirement in 2870bis, the IETF is holding strong in its commitment to IPv6 on every node. The root servers are critical infrastructure, and in my view, they should lead the way to IPv6. > > Russ > >