On 25 Jul 2011, at 17:30, Ronald Bonica wrote: > 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.
This scares me. I was on the point of saying, "But none of that stuff makes it historic!" but you then change what "Historic" means, so that I can no longer be certain ... I'd like to see the text, but my feeling is that, no, I will not approve. That document is too loaded with dubious claims and 6to4 hate for my liking. And the advisory document is already perfect for expressing the _real_ problems, that really _do_ exist, for (current) 6to4 deployment. Once again, "Historic" (in whatever sense meant) is just too strong an applied label to something which _can_ be used. I have a very hard time seeing the sense in this document. But let's see the text. Perhaps you can redefine the word "Historic" in a new and interesting way. Cheers, Sabahattin _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
