[DNSOP] Re: [v6ops] Re: Re: Moving DNS64 (RFC6147 ) to Internet Standard

Michael Richardson <[email protected]> Mon, 13 Apr 2026 11:01:03 -0400

Newsgroups	gmane.ietf.dnsop,gmane.ietf.v6ops
Message-ID	<[email protected]>

Philip Homburg <[email protected]> wrote:
    > Maybe the RFC processes should not be abused for RFPs?

Uhm.  Being able to cite RFC in trade-agreement compliant RFPs are 96% of the
reason companies are willing to fund the IETF to produce RFCs.
If not for that, governments would be unable to procure either DNS servers or
IPv6 routers, etc.

It's not an abuse of the RFPs, for some, it's their primary purpose.
(Yes, I live in a government town.  Yes, I talk to people who do this.  I've
even had products on government standing offer, based upon RFC compliance)

    > If you cannot put a standards track RFC in an RFP (and RFC 6147 is standards
    > track) then that is not something the IETF needs to fix?

Depending upon how the other documents are advanced, if 6147 is not advanced
as well, it might well need to be removed from being referenced.  That
effectively deprecates it from a procurement point of view.

--
Michael Richardson <[email protected]>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide

**       My working hours and your working hours may be different.         **
** Please do not feel obligated to reply outside your normal working hours **

_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]

signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, 487 B)