Hi -
From: "TJ" <trejrco(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com>
To: "Randy Presuhn" <randy_presuhn(_at_)mindspring(_dot_)com>
Cc: <ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Sent: Thursday, June 09, 2011 10:36 AM
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Last Call: <draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic-04.txt>
...
The point is that the "historic" declaration can be a statement
about how the IETF wants things to be, rather than how they are.
If one happens to be a user or vendor of a "historic" technology,
the declaration might sting a little, but it's really not a big deal, IMO.
Although I have already stated my position in this issue (against, for now),
I have a problem with the above logic.
You are effectively arguing that this move won't really impact anything ...
in which case I would ask, why are we doing it?
No, what I'm saying is that declaring a technology "historic" does not
make it go away. If accompanied by strong advice and good alternatives,
it might contribute to a reduced likelihood that one will encounter the
offensive technology, but things rarely disappear completely, nor as
quickly as one might like.
Speaking in horribly general terms, rather than the specifics of 6to4:
The folks who believe they have a legitimate need for a technology will
continue to use it as long as they are able to. The folks who don't find
it causing problems for them will tend to leave things alone - there's
always the fear that turning something off, even if it appears to be
little-used, might break some critical but low-frequency application
somewhere in the enterprise. The folks for whom the historic
technology has been causing a problem will rejoice and turn it off or
remove it from their products, but will still need to defend against it,
because you never know what's going to come in from the
big bad internet.
Randy
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf