Hi all,
Brian clarified the point, but I'd like to remind the exact criteria required
by this process:
The request for reclassification is sent to the IESG along with an
explanation of how the criteria have been met. The criteria are:
(1) There are at least two independent interoperating implementations
with widespread deployment and successful operational experience.
(2) There are no errata against the specification that would cause a
new implementation to fail to interoperate with deployed ones.
(3) There are no unused features in the specification that greatly
increase implementation complexity.
(4) If the technology required to implement the specification
requires patented or otherwise controlled technology, then the
set of implementations must demonstrate at least two independent,
separate and successful uses of the licensing process.
Cheers,
Med
> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : Brian E Carpenter <[email protected]>
> Envoyé : jeudi 9 avril 2026 22:21
> À : Paul Vixie <[email protected]>; [email protected]
> Cc : IPv6 Operations <[email protected]>; Philip Homburg <pch-dnsop-
> [email protected]>
> Objet : [DNSOP] Re: [v6ops] Re: Re: Moving DNS64 (RFC6147) to
> Internet Standard
>
>
> On 10-Apr-26 07:17, Paul Vixie wrote:
> > On Thursday, April 9, 2026 12:12:12 PM PDT Philip Homburg wrote:
> >
> > > > ...
> >
> > >
> >
> > > In my opinion we should strongly discourage deploying DNS64.
> So
> > moving
> >
> > > DNS64 to Internet Standard sends completely the wrong
> message.
>
> I'm very torn on that, because like it or not DNS64 is stable,
> well-defined, and widely implemented. (I'd also prefer to abolish
> the problem by abolishing the distinction between Proposed
> Standard and Internet Standard, but that's another story.)
>
> >
> > so, i agree, but:
> >
> > > DNS64 is incompatible with local DNSSEC validation. This
> combines
> > the > worst of both worlds: something doesn't work both because
> of
> > DNSSEC and > IPv6.
> > >
> > > New deployments of NAT64 should either use some kind of
> address
> > synthesis > in a library or deploy a CLAT.
>
> I don't think there's much disagreement with that.
>
> > we should not need new deployments of v6/v4 transition
> technology almost 20 years after june 6 2006, and it's time for
> the IETF to occupy that position.
>
> But we still do need co-existence for very practical reasons.
> That's why v6ops is developing the IPv6-mostly approach in draft-
> ietf-v6ops-6mops, which explicitly says:
> "Those concerns make DNS64 a suboptimal and undesirable solution
> long-term.
> To eliminate the needs for DNS64..." etc.
>
> So we might end up with DNS64 completely meeting the requirements
> for Internet Standard status and being operationally deprecated.
> Yes, it's a paradox.
>
> Brian
>
> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list -- [email protected]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations
confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce
message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages
electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou
falsifie. Merci.
This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged
information that may be protected by law;
they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete
this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been
modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
