On Sun, 3 Jul 2011 10:10:03 +0900
Erik Kline <e...@google.com> wrote:
> All,
>
> > Perhaps declaring 6to4 deprecated rather than historic would have a
> > better chance of consensus.
>
> Pardon my ignorance, but where is the document describing the
> implications of historic{,al} vs deprecated?
>
> This (http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2026#section-4.2.4) is well known:
>
> """
> A specification that has been superseded by a more recent
> specification or is for any other reason considered to be obsolete is
> assigned to the "Historic" level. (Purists have suggested that the
> word should be "Historical"; however, at this point the use of
> "Historic" is historical.)
>
> Note: Standards track specifications normally must not depend on
> other standards track specifications which are at a lower maturity
> level or on non standards track specifications other than referenced
> specifications from other standards bodies. (See Section 7.)
> """
>
> I don't know where similar explanatory language about "Deprecated"
> might be (I'm sure I just didn't search correctly or long enough).
Since 6rd depends on 6to4, as it is a variant of it, would 6to4 being
declared historic also mean that 6rd needs to become historic as well?
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
