Re: Last Call: <draft-iab-2870bis-01.txt> (DNS Root Name Service Protoco

On 29 maj 2014, at 20:29, David Conrad <drc(_at_)virtualized(_dot_)org> wrote:

> > 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?
I do not think it has a different impact. I am more nervous over what the 
impact will be if IETF stop saying IPv6 is required. If IETF do not say so it 
is impossible to say that B, E and G does not live up to whatever requirement 
IETF set.

I.e. I do not think it is wrong that IETF require what IETF want to require. 
The error is elsewhere.

   Patrik

signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail