On 2011-06-10 03:18, Philip Homburg wrote:
...
I think this is likely to happen anyway. In all discussions it has been come
clear that 6to4 has nothing to offer for ordinary users,
In all fairness, that depends on your definition of "ordinary".
Where I differ from Keith is that I don't think we harm the current
ordinary (or extraordinary) 6to4 users by relabelling the RFCs.
At best, I think it's a waste of time. At worst, I think it will do harm by
reducing the number of host implementations that can use 6to4, before native
IPv6 is widely available.
In between those extremes, I think there's a large potential for confusion from
the publication of 6to4-advisory along with declaring 6to4 historic and
discouraging new implementations. On one hand, we're telling people how to
make 6to4 work better. On the other hand, we're telling people that it's bad
and that they shouldn't implement it. While I've long favored the idea that
IETF needs a way to say "this protocol/practice causes problems and we'd rather
you not use it, but if you do use it please do it this way", in this case we're
trying to do it with two different documents that say somewhat contradictory
things to one another.
Really I think that 6to4-advisory should be sufficient. That, and it's much
better written and more balanced.
Keith
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf