Folks,
After an active discussion, it is clear that there is no consensus. So, I will
transition draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic to the DEAD state.
Ron
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ronald Bonica
> Sent: Monday, July 25, 2011 10:31 AM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic (yet again)
>
> 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
