The Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) is a community that has been shaping the very essence of the Internet for decades. As the IETF approaches its 40th anniversary in 2026 and with a history of more than 55 years of the RFC series, it is inevitable that many of its key contributors have retired or passed away. Although prominent figures such as Jon Postel and Jun-ichiro Hagino have been honored through awards, current mechanisms are not scalable given the growing number of people who have made valuable contributions.
This has led to “draft-richardson-in-memoriam-00”, authored by Michael Richardson — an Internet Draft that proposes a novel way to posthumously recognize key contributors to the IETF by dedicating specific IPv6 addresses as memorials.
(Free access, no subscription required)
The Proposal: A /64 Prefix for Remembrance*
The main idea behind this draft is to assign a unique /64 IPv6 prefix from the IANA Special Use pool specifically for memorials. This new prefix would be called the “IETF In-Memoriam prefix” and would involve the creation of a new sub-registry maintained using the IESG Approval process.
How Would Digital Memorials Work?
A permanent PTR and TXT record would be established in the ip6.arpa zone for each honored individual.
A TXT record would list the person’s name and their years (for example, “Frederick J. Baker (February 28, 1952 – June 18, 2025)”).
The proposal even suggests a creative way to assign the IPv6 address itself, using the 64-lower bits to represent the numbers of the RFCs authored by the person. For example, the given address of Fred Baker, a prolific author of over 60 RFCs, might be 2001:TBD:1220:2804:4595:8028, in reference to some of his most notable RFCs.
As with any new proposal at the IETF, the draft has generated discussion and raised important considerations among the community:
The Proposal: A /64 Prefix for Remembrance*
The main idea behind this draft is to assign a unique /64 IPv6 prefix from the IANA Special Use pool specifically for memorials. This new prefix would be called the “IETF In-Memoriam prefix” and would involve the creation of a new sub-registry maintained using the IESG Approval process.
How Would Digital Memorials Work?
A permanent PTR and TXT record would be established in the ip6.arpa zone for each honored individual.
A TXT record would list the person’s name and their years (for example, “Frederick J. Baker (February 28, 1952 – June 18, 2025)”).
The proposal even suggests a creative way to assign the IPv6 address itself, using the 64-lower bits to represent the numbers of the RFCs authored by the person. For example, the given address of Fred Baker, a prolific author of over 60 RFCs, might be 2001:TBD:1220:2804:4595:8028, in reference to some of his most notable RFCs.
As with any new proposal at the IETF, the draft has generated discussion and raised important considerations among the community:
Privacy and sensitivity: The draft stresses that the families of the deceased should be consulted and approve the record before it is made public, recognizing that this information might be considered intrusive or private.
Security against fraud: To prevent false memorials, the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG) is advised to seek multiple sources of corroboration and react slowly to new proposals, allowing time for fact-checking.
Fit within protocols or practices: S. Moonesamy raised the question of whether requests in Section 5 of the draft fit within the RFC 6890 guidelines for reserving “special-purpose” address blocks to support new protocols or practices. Michael Richardson believes this would be considered a “practice.”
Exclusivity and scalability concerns: Ross Finlayson expressed concern that reserving IPv6 addresses for this purpose might seem exclusive or “cliquish” and potentially contrary to the spirit of IPv6. He questioned who would decide whether a contributor is “significant” enough and suggested considering this for all deceased (or even living) IETF members, noting the abundance of IPv6 space. Richardson addressed these points directly, humorously acknowledging it as “our clique” and reiterating that IPv6 space is not scarce and noting that this might help people remember that. He also observed that the IESG would decide on significance and welcomed requests to expand the scope.
Use of the address: Finlayson also wondered about the intended behavior if such a memorial address were to be used in the destination field of an IPv6 packet. Richardson clarified that the Special Purpose space (2001::/23), from which this prefix would be derived, is typically not intended to appear in the destination field of packets in the Default Free Zone (DFZ).
This proposal offers a unique and technically grounded way to honor the individuals who have shaped the Internet. It highlights the vastness of the IPv6 address space and leverages the DNS infrastructure to create a lasting digital legacy for key IETF contributors. The discussions surrounding the proposal also reflect the rigorous and detail-oriented nature of the IETF’s collaborative process.
Not least, there must be assurance that the individual being honored has indeed passed away.
Part of me wonders whether actions like this by the IETF might indirectly encourage greater engagement and collaboration within the IETF from people motivated by the idea of leaving a digital legacy.
Conclusions
This proposal represents an innovative and respectful way to honor key contributors to the Internet, using existing technical resources (IPv6 and DNS) to create a lasting digital legacy, while maintaining a process that is rigorous and open to the community.
The views expressed by the authors of this blog are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views of LACNIC.
