Ron,
I believe 'draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-advisory' is both
necessary and sufficient regardless of whether
"historic" is an appropriate characterization. So,
I don't think we need this document.
Thanks - Fred
fred(_dot_)l(_dot_)templin(_at_)boeing(_dot_)com
-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
[mailto:ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On
Behalf Of Ronald Bonica
Sent: Monday, July 25, 2011 7:31 AM
To: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic (yet again)
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