I'm in favor of the proposed action and the clarification of historic, suggested in the new section. (I could be in _strong_ favour to nullify Keith's 'vote', although I hope we're not counting. ;-)), .
cheers, Ole On Jul 25, 2011, at 10:30 , Ronald Bonica wrote: > Folks, > > After some discussion, the IESG is attempting to determine whether there is > IETF consensus to do the following: > > - add a new section to draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic > - publish draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic as INFORMATIONAL > > draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic will obsolete RFCs 3056 and 3068 and > convert their status to HISTORIC. It will also contain a new section > describing what it means for RFCs 3056 and 3068 to be classified as HISTORIC. > The new section will say that: > > - 6-to-4 should not be configured by default on any implementation (hosts, > cpe routers, other) > - vendors will decide whether/when 6-to-4 will be removed from > implementations. Likewise, operators will decide whether/when 6-to-4 relays > will be removed from their networks. The status of RFCs 3056 and 3068 should > not be interpreted as a recommendation to remove 6-to-4 at any particular > time. > > > draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic will not update RFC 2026. While it > clarifies the meaning of "HISTORIC" in this particular case, it does not set > a precedent for any future case. > > Please post your views on this course of action by August 8, 2011. > > > Ron Bonica > <speaking > as OPS Area AD> > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
