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

Michael Richardson <[email protected]> Tue, 14 Apr 2026 16:11:32 -0400

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

"[email protected]" wrote:
    > Some times we don’t have problems to solve, but instead, we follow the process that we have adopted.

    > In fact, I think in general we are failing when we don’t move all the
    > protocols that comply with IS status to IS status. Yes, it means some
    > effort, but I think if we don’t want to invest that effort, we should
    > deprecate the IS status and avoid it for any document. Personally I
    > don’t think we should do that, but we need to be consistent with our
    > process.

The major advantage that STDxxx has over {RFC-A,RFC-B,RFC-C}, is that we
get to decide what's in STDxxx, rather than the people writing procurement
documents.
In general, they are going to copy and paste whatever they did last
year.  This is more and more true as procurement becomes centralized and
removed from the people who actually want the equipment/have the budget.

{If those people have any background in computing (vs say, "Public
Administration"), then it's because they failed upwards, and then were
displaced sideways when Peter's Principal got hold of them.
I ran with several such individuals last night, retired.  Their sideways
displacement was the result of their own recognition...}

If we were to kill IS, then we'd still need an STD-like series of
collections.

--
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)