On Jul 2, 2011, at 8:14 PM, Keith Moore wrote:
On Jul 2, 2011, at 10:00 PM, Erik Kline wrote:
Since 6rd depends on 6to4, as it is a variant of it, would 6to4 being
declared historic also mean that 6rd needs to become historic as well?
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic-05
Section 1, in which the draft clarifies that 6rd supersedes 6to4,
which is of course completely incorrect.
While 6rd shares a mechanism with 6 to 4 and can be implemented by reusing
code, it is a mistake to conclude a standards action that impacts the later
would impact the former, or that they are substitutable for each other.
Keith
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf