In your letter dated Mon, 25 Jul 2011 20:25:53 -0700 you wrote:
Maybe I'm reading the list wrong,
but I think the sticky point here is the "historic" thing, and nothing
short of removing that part will significantly change the mindset of
people who oppose it.
Have you considered a newer revision of the 6-to-4 RFCs that would
obsolete the current ones and add that 6-to-4 should be disabled by
default? That could reach consensus.
Hmm, I never bothered to really study RFC-2026. But now I found this:
[Section 6.2:]
"When a standards-track specification has not reached the Internet
"Standard level but has remained at the same maturity level for
"twenty-four (24) months, and every twelve (12) months thereafter
"until the status is changed, the IESG shall review the viability of
"the standardization effort responsible for that specification and the
"usefulness of the technology. Following each such review, the IESG
"shall approve termination or continuation of the development effort,
"at the same time the IESG shall decide to maintain the specification
"at the same maturity level or to move it to Historic status. This
"decision shall be communicated to the IETF by electronic mail to the
"IETF Announce mailing list to allow the Internet community an
"opportunity to comment. This provision is not intended to threaten a
"legitimate and active Working Group effort, but rather to provide an
"administrative mechanism for terminating a moribund effort.
I think it is safe to say that 6to4 is a standard track protocol that is
going nowhere. So why can't the IESG just decide to move 6to4 to historic?
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf