ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic

2011-07-05 10:42:04


On Sun, 3 Jul 2011 10:10:03 +0900
Erik Kline <ek(_at_)google(_dot_)com> wrote:

All,

Perhaps declaring 6to4 deprecated rather than historic would have a
better chance of consensus.

Pardon my ignorance, but where is the document describing the
implications of historic{,al} vs deprecated?

This (http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2026#section-4.2.4) is well known:

"""
   A specification that has been superseded by a more recent
   specification or is for any other reason considered to be obsolete is
   assigned to the "Historic" level.  (Purists have suggested that the
   word should be "Historical"; however, at this point the use of
   "Historic" is historical.)

   Note: Standards track specifications normally must not depend on
   other standards track specifications which are at a lower maturity
   level or on non standards track specifications other than referenced
   specifications from other standards bodies.  (See Section 7.)
"""

I don't know where similar explanatory language about "Deprecated"
might be (I'm sure I just didn't search correctly or long enough).

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?

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf