Brian,
Does the following text work for you?
Ron
N. Meaning of HISTORIC
For the purposes of this document, the term HISTORIC means:
- 6-to-4 should not be configured by default on any implementation (host, cpe
router, other)
- Vendors will decide which future versions of their products will support
6-to-4. It is assumed that vendors will continue to support 6-to-4 until a)
they are no longer economically incented to do so and b) they are economically
incented to remove unused features from their products.
- Operators will decide when to decommission 6-to-4 relays, if ever. It is
assumed that operators will continue to operate 6-to-4 relays as long as they
are economically incented to do so. When 6-to-4 traffic levels reach zero,
operators will probably begin to consider decommissioning.
The status of RFCs 3056 and 3068 should not be interpreted as a recommendation
to remove 6-to-4 at any particular time.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, July 25, 2011 11:09 PM
> To: Ronald Bonica
> Cc: ietf@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic (yet again)
>
> To be clear, I'd like to see exact proposed text before expressing
> support for the proposal. The trick is to get 6to4 disabled by default
> at the user end, without disabling it for users who are getting good
> service from it.
>
> Regards
> Brian
>
> On 2011-07-26 09:49, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> >> Likewise, operators will decide whether/when 6-to-4 relays will be
> removed from their networks.
> >
> > This is, of course, an undeniable statement of fact (as it is for any
> other feature
> > of the Internet). However, it needs to be made clear that doing so
> *prematurely*
> > would penalise existing successful users of those relays, and
> therefore it should
> > only be done when there is no successful traffic through them. Which
> is when any
> > operator would remove them anyway.
> >
> > Therefore, I don't see much value in this statement, and possible
> harm to users.
> > The ways to avoid such harm as far as possible are already in the RFC
> Editor
> > queue.
> >
> > Regards
> > Brian Carpenter
> >
> > On 2011-07-26 02:30, 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
> >> Ietf@ietf.org
> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
> >>
> >
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
