Extremist-A should be to publish a "6to4 considered dangerous" draft with lots
of MUST NOT language.
-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
[mailto:ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Martin Rex
Sent: 06 July 2011 23:50
To: Doug Barton
Cc: v6ops(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org; ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic
Doug Barton wrote:
On 07/06/2011 13:14, Martin Rex wrote:
Doug Barton wrote:
I was however willing to accept "historic" as a reasonable compromise.
"historic" as a compromise? Between which two positions?
Nuking it from orbit, and erecting a statue in its honor?
Which to options that are actually available to the IESG? I see
extremist-A: nuke/kill 6to4 by moving 3056/3068 to historic
compromise: move 3056/3068 off Standards Track,
i.e. by reclassifying them as Experimental
blocked: leave 3056/3068 at Proposed, publish only 6to4-advisory
extremist-B: stick fingers in ears, sing la-la-la, pretend 6to4 is perfect
-Martin
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Scanned by Check Point Total Security Gateway.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf