--On Sunday, 01 July, 2007 10:49 -0700 Paul Hoffman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 1:56 AM +0900 7/2/07, Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino wrote: >> > NAT-PT really needs to be wiped off the face of the earth. >> > It provides all of the disadvantages of IPv4+NAT with all >>> of the transition costs of IPv6. If there is ever any >>> significant penetration of NAT-PT, then the pseudo-IPv6 >>> network will not be able to support any more kinds of >>> applications than the NATted IPv4 does today. >> >> i tend to agree, but in rfc-index.txt i could not find the >> change of state to "Historic". what happend to very similar >> (and much more evil IMHO) transition technology, SIIT? > > <https://datatracker.ietf.org/idtracker/?search_filename=draft > -ietf-v6ops-natpt-to-historic> indicates that the document > making NAT-PT is in the RFC Editor's queue. I wasn't aware that the RFC Editor couldn't simply move a document to historic in the index when something is queued that explains that action. The two actions -- reclassification and publication-- ought to be largely independent. Or is this another example of the triumph of procedure over good sense? john _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
