Message-Id: <m1wCHUo-0000QZC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net>
To: dnsop@ietf.org
From: Philip Homburg <pch-dnsop-7@u-1.phicoh.com>
Sender: pch-b55F8B228@u-1.phicoh.com
References: <m1wAunU-0000NEC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net>
 <2338256.t9SDvczpPo@localhost>
 <038ae9d1-34fc-4085-aa6d-76ef79287857@gmail.com>
 <PARP264MB6760A67BB8F2060962E8A64088592@PARP264MB6760.FRAP264.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
 <B93DB6C8-2974-4915-93DE-DFCB6B858AFA@consulintel.es>
 <m1wB6jW-0000VYC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <25022.1775841874@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
 <m1wBGFD-0000PhC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <5539.1775850116@obiwan.sandelman.ca> 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 10 Apr 2026 15:41:56 -0400 ."
             <5539.1775850116@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2026 15:38:33 +0200
Message-ID-Hash: 5ZYOCEZR73IMPJ6WKYBKM3DVSQBAKVCY
CC: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>,
 IPv6 Operations <v6ops@ietf.org>
Precedence: list
Subject: =?utf-8?q?=5BDNSOP=5D_Re=3A_=5Bv6ops=5D_Re=3A_Re=3A_Moving_DNS64_=28RFC6147?=
	=?utf-8?q?=29_to_Internet_Standard_?=
Archived-At: 
 <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/_fArPbOEuL4FfShgexrSelJsBTE>

>People who wrote v4-only applications will just fail on v6only hosts.
>No confusion.

You mean people why write dual-stack applications will just see them fail
on v6only hosts. Yes, that is an issue. And that's an issue we need to
address. Not by adding DNS64 and predenting everything is fine, except for 
a long list of things that all don't work with DNS64.

>It's only people who were v6-clueful on the application, and yet have *not*
>deployed v6 servers, who will run into problems.

Are we now at the point where it is okay to break IPv4-only services?
Maybe that's a bit detached from the real world? 

>Just *(@$#5324 deploy v6 already. OMG.
>
>DNS64 might not work for you, and should not be recommended for new
>application writers, but it *is* out there, and I *do* need a consistent set
>of IS RFCs that can go into RFPs in order to get v6-mostly.
>Not having DNS64 on that list will let some product manager remove support
>for it in some router and/or DNS recursive resolver.
>(Note: that could be the resolver at 127.0.0.53 used by a container)

Maybe the RFC processes should not be abused for RFPs? 
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?