<hat co-chair=off just-another-bozo=on> Ed,
First off, I probably need to recuse as WG co-chair on this one, since the transport guidelines doc is partly based on a back of a (virtual) envelope proposal I made several years ago. Anyway.... In principle, I agree with you that what the doc ought to say is "every zone should be available via every version of IP", full stop. The difficulty is that the situation is not as symmetrical as it might seem. IPv4 is already deployed, and we can't do much about all the zones for which all the authoritative name servers are IPv4-only. We can say that it'd be nice for the world to fix this, but IPv6 does not yet have enough traction for this to be much more than wishful thinking, and I've never much cared for inventing rules that we know aren't going to be enforced. We can, however, expect that IPv6 deployment will take interoperability with IPv4 into account, thus it's reasonable for us to say how to do that. Some day, a decade or so from now, when everything that matters is dual stack and keeping IPv4 running costs more than it's worth, we can write a new RFC that says that IPv4 support isn't required anymore. But trying to write a document now for that far future day just dilutes the message that today's document is to trying to send. So, while I understand where you're coming from, and can live with the change you're proposing if that's the consensus, I think it'd be better to leave the text alone. </hat> . dnsop resources:_____________________________________________________ web user interface: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/dnsop.html mhonarc archive: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/dnsop/index.html
