I'm in favor of the proposed action and the clarification of historic,
suggested in the new section.
(I could be in _strong_ favour to nullify Keith's 'vote', although I hope we're
not counting. ;-)), .
cheers,
Ole
On Jul 25, 2011, at 10:30 , Ronald Bonica wrote:
Folks,
After some discussion, the IESG is attempting to determine whether there is
IETF consensus to do the following:
- add a new section to draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic
- publish draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic as INFORMATIONAL
draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic will obsolete RFCs 3056 and 3068 and
convert their status to HISTORIC. It will also contain a new section
describing what it means for RFCs 3056 and 3068 to be classified as HISTORIC.
The new section will say that:
- 6-to-4 should not be configured by default on any implementation (hosts,
cpe routers, other)
- vendors will decide whether/when 6-to-4 will be removed from
implementations. Likewise, operators will decide whether/when 6-to-4 relays
will be removed from their networks. The status of RFCs 3056 and 3068 should
not be interpreted as a recommendation to remove 6-to-4 at any particular
time.
draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic will not update RFC 2026. While it
clarifies the meaning of "HISTORIC" in this particular case, it does not set
a precedent for any future case.
Please post your views on this course of action by August 8, 2011.
Ron Bonica
<speaking
as OPS Area AD>
_______________________________________________
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