On Jun 9, 2011, at 1:30 PM, Randy Presuhn wrote:
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.
RFC 1227 specified an experimental protocol.
The 6to4 specification is standard track.
Declaring historic a standard track specification although it still serves
legitimate needs would, AFAIK, be a precedent, a regrettable one IMHO.
Consider, then, RFC 1157.
It was, quite rightly, declared historic years ago, even though it
was a full standard and in rather widespread use at the time.
Was there a replacement for RFC 1157 (presumably, a new version of SNMP)
generally available at the time that document was moved to Historic?
I mean, it would make perfect sense to want to declare 1157 historic if there
were a new version available that clearly worked better. Right now, there's
not a readily available replacement for 6to4 that is clearly better.
So I think the comparison is not valid. SNMP (of whatever version) is a
protocol that you can use on your own network if you want to, and that's where
most of its utility is. You don't have to get your ISP to support it before
it's significantly useful to you. By contrast, the very purpose of 6to4 is to
communicate with peers over someone else's network(s). If you want to run IPv6
over your own IPv4 network, 6rd or maybe 6over4 are better suited to that.
Ietf mailing list