From: "james woodyatt" <jhw(_at_)apple(_dot_)com>
Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2011 9:17 AM
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Last Call: <draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic-04.txt>
On Jun 8, 2011, at 9:04 AM, Noel Chiappa wrote:
From: Martin Rex <mrex(_at_)sap(_dot_)com>
Classification of 6to4 as historic is [in]appropriate use of the IETF
process, because it would be a political .. statement.
Well, we've never done _that_ before, have we? Wouldn't want to set an
I see no reason for IETF to avoid setting standards for layer-9 protocols.
I'm pretty sure Noel was being scarcastic. There's clear precedent in the
analogous case where RFC 1227 was declared historic, despite its
widespread use for that particular application at the time.
On the other side of the argument, declaring RFC 1227 historic had little
(I'm being generous) impact on its continued use. The folks that needed it
kept using it, in some cases long after the IETF's replacement for it became
Ietf mailing list