I'm sorry, I seem to have goofed up during mail editing...
I meant to write that cassifying 6to4 as historic is INappropriate use
of the IETF process in the last sentence.
Martin Rex wrote:
George, Wesley wrote:
It's time to remove the stabilisers on the IPv6 bicycle.
This takes nothing away. It's not as if the day that this draft gets
published as an RFC, 6to4 stops working.
In my personal perception, the "historic" status used to be a technical
characterization to indicate that
(1) a protocol or technology has been fully replaced by some newer
protocol and there is no reason to continue using the original
technology anymore because the successor can be used in each
of the original usage scenarios today
(2) the protocol/technology has been largely put out of use, and its
active use has dropped to marginal levels (like less than 1% of the
original active use)
Personally, I have never conciously used anything related to IPv6 so
far, so for me it is difficult to comment, but what has been said
looks to me that neither (1) nor (2) apply to 6to4.
The user base seems to have always been small, and most of the users
of 6to4 simply did _not_ have an alternative -- and its current
users still do _not_ have an alternative today.
Classification of 6to4 as historic is appropriate use of the IETF process,
because it would be a political, but not an accurate technical statement.
Ietf mailing list