Mark Andrews wrote: > > In message "Randy Presuhn" writes: > > > > We can't compel people to continue supporting it any more than we can > > make them stop. At most, we can give them (hopefully convincing) reasons > > to change. If the SNMP experience shows anything, it shows that even > > that isn't enough. For that reason, I find it amusing when others write of > > "killing" 6to4. We don't have that kind of power. > > But you can give them a big excuse not to support it. > > Customer: "Where did the 6to4 support go?" > Vendor: "The IETF declared it historic so we removed it."
> Vendor: "I repeat the IETF declared it historic." > > 6to4 on by default is wrong. > > Making 6to4 historic is a knee jerk reaction to a bad default setting. > Fix the default. Don't make 6to4 historic. I fully agree about your description of the purpose of "historic" for vendor and its usage by vendors. The only sensible use of historic is to promote active de-support on the part of vendors -- literally for "ripping things out". I just did that myself 4 weeks ago, justifying the complete removal of support for MD2-based digital signatures from our PKI software with a pointer to http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6149 "MD2 to Historic Status" Moving 6to4 seems premature by several years. -Martin _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
