I shudder to think that this is a prerequisite for declaring something Historic.
If some RFC meant to solve some problem turns out not only to be a bad idea but
also shows that the problem itself is essentially intractable, I don't think
it's practical at all to require a replacement before declaring the RFC
Historic.
From: v6ops-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
[mailto:v6ops-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Keith Moore
Sent: Sunday, July 03, 2011 12:31 PM
To: Arturo Servin
Cc: IPv6 Operations; IETF Discussion
Subject: Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic
Honestly I'd be happy to declare 6to4 Historic if we had a suitable replacement
- one that could be automatically configured by hosts, used by applications,
and worked better than 6to4 in most cases. I don't think it exists yet.
[...]
Keith
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf