Brian, in view of changing times, I do think that it is recommended to republish this valuable RFC as a BCP, possibly with some small changes, so starting with 4038bis.
--behcet ----- Original Message ---- > From: Brian E Carpenter <[email protected]> > To: Behcet Sarikaya <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected] > Sent: Fri, December 4, 2009 4:40:28 PM > Subject: Re: Proposal to change status of RFC 4038 > > > There is concern that this is an informational RFC. > > I don't understand that. Why would anyone care? > > I do have one concern, though. It would be much better if the > code fragments were clearly under the current regime (i.e. > simplified BSD license from the IETF Trust). > > Apart from that, are there any major technical concerns that > would justify an update? > > Regards > Brian > > (P.S. I do think this is a very valuable RFC!) > > > > On 2009-12-05 10:46, Behcet Sarikaya wrote: > > Hello 6manners, > > We are hearing the news that RFC 4038 has started to be used by app > developers for IPv6 transition. See recent softwire discussions. > > > > There is concern that this is an informational RFC. I think that IETF can > reissue it as a BCP and 6man is probably the right place. > > > > Regards, > > > > Behcet > > > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > > [email protected] > > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
