----- Original Message -----
From: "Randy Presuhn" <randy_presuhn(_at_)mindspring(_dot_)com>
To: <ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Sent: Friday, July 22, 2011 5:53 PM
Hi -
From: "Mykyta Yevstifeyev" <evnikita2(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com>
To: <ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Sent: Friday, July 22, 2011 3:16 AM
Subject: Historic status (was Another look at 6to4 (and other IPv6
transitionissues))
...
And what could/should be done? I think, IESG and the whole community,
cooperating with IAB, IRSG and ISE, should determine the definition of
Historic which will be fine enough to cover all existing issues with it,
and then either publish such approach as BCP or incorporate when
updating RFC 2026. This will eliminate the problems with different
issues with procedures for and understanding of Historic RFCs as well as
clear up one of "dark places" in IETF process.
...
After universal IPv6 deployment has been achieved, after we have
workable standardized configuration management, after all significant
protocols have been properly secured, and after NAT has been
banished from this planet, I *might* be persuaded to support
spending time on this.
But Randy, you already have; you have spent time sending an e-mail; I was hoping
that this time there would be no response at all.
Tom Petch
Randy
_______________________________________________
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