--On Saturday, July 16, 2011 08:34 +1200 Brian E Carpenter
We can spend another few months debating the exact form of
words for a normative document advising implementors to do
what most of them are now doing; I don't care and it basically
doesn't matter except in the IETF's tiny world. That isn't
what's important. What's important is to get as many operators
as possible doing what they can to ameliorate the situation.
It seems to me that you can take two positions here, but not
both as the same time.
Position #1: What the IETF does, and how it classifies things,
actually make a difference. If that is true then the advice
document should look a lot more mandatory and should certainly
be shown as updating the 6to4 base documents (I note that the
latter decision could be made without reopening the document in
any significant way). Whether it is part of the advice document
or not, an applicability statement that discusses what is really
going on is important and reclassification to Historic would be
stupid. If nothing else, unless it reclassifies your advice doc
to Historic as well, reclassification to Historic would be
appeal-bait. And classifying your document as Historic also
would rather dilute the message.
Position #2: How the IETF classifies things makes very little
difference in this space because people will follow advice that
seems sensible and ignore everything else. If so, it makes
little difference how your document is approved or where it is
published. For example, it could have come through the
Independent Stream or been pushed into CCR. No problem. And
the "Historic" effort is a huge waste of the community's time,
no matter how it comes out.
Just my opinion -- you will probably continue to disagree.
Ietf mailing list