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

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

Michael said:

> 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.

This is the most powerful argument I've seen for abolishing the difference between
Proposed Standard and Internet Standard. *This is the very definition of makework.*

Regards/Ngā mihi
    Brian

On 14-Apr-26 03:01, Michael Richardson wrote:
> 
> Philip Homburg <[e-mail]> 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 <[e-mail]>   . 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 **
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list -- [e-mail]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]