> >
> > 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?
>
> If you look at draft-ietf-v6ops-natpt-to-historic-00.txt (the
> draft that obsoletes NAT-PT), it is quite critical of SIIT
> (RFC 2765), but does not obsolete it.
>
> [I attempted to obsolete SIIT before it was written (RFC 1671
> section B) but that didn't work :-) . There are parts of
> RFC 1671 that are wrong, but not that part.]
i cannot agree more.
maybe it is time to revisit draft-itojun-v6ops-v4mapped-harmful-02.txt?
itojun
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
